Psychiatric research currently faces multiple crises; one is that trust in reported research findings has been eroded. Concerns that much research serves the interests of industry rather than the interests of patients have become mainstream. Such worries are not unique to psychiatry, but extend to many areas of science. One way in which such concerns can be ameliorated is via the development of more amateur/ citizen/ user-led research. I argue that promoting research conducted outside of traditional academic settings promises a range of benefits – both to the non-traditional researchers themselves and to others who want truths to be discovered. Having argued that it would be a good idea to have more user-produced research, I discuss how research by users might be facilitated or hindered by changes to the informational infrastructure of science. In particular, I discuss how different styles of classification, and rating scale, can facilitate the work of some research communities and set-back the work of others.