Ethics review of research involving humans has become something of an institution in recent years. It is intended to protect participants from harm and, to that end, follows rigorous standards. Given recent changes in research methodologies utilized in medical research, it may be that ethics review for some kinds of studies needs to be reexamined. The purpose of this paper is to stimulate dialogue regarding the kind of review required for citizen science-based research. We describe a case study of a proposal submitted to our research ethics board and propose different approaches to proportionate review in research involving citizen scientists. In particular, we describe how problems with the term "participant" led to confusion in review of this study and examine the study in light of current Canadian guidelines. We suggest that the term participant and indeed the general approach to low-risk community-based studies such as the one described warrant reexamination.