DISQUS

Jay Fienberg · 1 year ago

Great post--and this is a great analogy:

"how does your wife feel when you tell her she's part of the crowd you were thinking of marrying."

Also, that's just totally classic!

digidave · 1 year ago

Dave
Excellent points. I'm guest blogging this week at Crowdsourcing.com so I might continue this conversation there.

I have had my own back and forth with the term "crowdsourcing." I agree it can sound cheap. But - in some context it is an easy way to describe what is happening. It's one word that captures an integral part of the internet: groups of people coming together for a common purpose/cause.

Some actions, like planting a tree are done by individuals.

Other actions, like staging a protest - require a group of people. We could describe this as "many individuals who have a common interest in stopping something from happening." But it's much easier to just call it a "protest." Yes, it doesn't recognize people's individuality - but if we started spouting off names and who the individual's parents were, every narrative would start to sound like a Greek tragedy.

So - how do we describe the phenomena of wikipedia, istockphoto, threadless, etc, etc in one word?

As with most things: I don't think this is a black/white issue. There are probably shades of gray, because as I already noted, I've had my own inhibitions with the word "crowdsourcing" but it does capture, in one word, what plays out all over the web.

Just wanted to provide a small counter-argument since during my guest-posting I'm revisiting the word a lot in my head.

kittell · 1 year ago

"So - how do we describe the phenomena of wikipedia, istockphoto, threadless, etc, etc in one word?"

Collaboration

gregorylent · 1 year ago

group mind

digidave · 1 year ago

I don't know if "collaboration" works for Threadless or iStockphoto. I think it does for wikipedia though.

kittell · 1 year ago

You're right about Threadless and iStockphoto not being collaboration, but they're not crowdsourcing, either. Crowdsourcing is collaboration (imho).

Noah David Simon · 1 year ago

Seesmic video reply from Disqus.

fredwilson · 1 year ago

so true. i'll take dave over digg any day

Daniel Ha · 1 year ago

I knew I didn't like that term for some reason, but I wasn't sure what that was. I think I'm going to use your explanation for myself -- it sounds about right. Crowd sourcing does evoke a feeling of cheapness. Maybe it's just the word because I very much believe in this era of community powered _anything_.

Alex Steed · 1 year ago

In response to some of the quips, though, I agree with Jay's latest converse Tweet: "When you go to vote do you say: hey, I wanted to be treated as an individual? Or treat me like everyone else?"

Matt Searles · 1 year ago

I'm with you in the sense that the language of "crowd sourcing" has implications that I find problematic... I tend to think that the form of a term or phrase is driven by underlying questions.. and the underlying question of the term "crowd sourcing" seems like.. in someway, the wrong question,.. or a wrong crystallization of an ecology of questions.

But still I think in terms of collective consciousness.. I apply concepts from Jungian psychology, Hindu metaphysics, and other fun stuff.. to how I'm thinking of this space.. the notion of crowd sourcing, as seen through this lens.. isn't so bad.. the bad of it is more the baggage of mass markets and centralization.. old models for thinking about communications and business..

I tend to think this is the big problem with most of the social media thinking I run into.. that so much of it is trying to think about this space from the point of view of old modes.. a management science that had newtonian physics as it's metaphysical presumptions.. but here we are in a quantum / new science world..

Its as if the new business ideas are largely hacks to the older ideas.. which probably have a lot of short term pragmatic value.. but this now moment of social media is.. seemingly more fleeting then other moments.. with the rate of change being what it is.. and to the extent to which the truth of our ideas are contextually dependent.. the flux of change in the ecology.. I think it will, as we move forward, give rise to a need for a different sorta existential relationship to these thoughts.. the challenge being like the challenge of Buddha.. to find the still point in the flux. And I think from the point of view of that place.. crowd sourcing doesn't work.

Mark Dykeman · 1 year ago

But from the Beatles, the Stones, choirs, full symphonies, and everything in between, some things work better in groups.

lemon obrien · 1 year ago

it's the young generation; they were taught that if you were not part of a crowd, you sucked; like everyone got a trophy, etc. it's unrealistic after the truth of money comes to bear. i'm with you; crowds are stupid; hence tech-bubble, mortgage-meltdown, energy speculation. i personally think people who like crowds, or needs to be "in-the-middle" of it all, are not "grown-up, self-thinking, independent, realized" human beings. they're still in the animal, safety-in-numbers, phase.

anyway, back to work.

gregorylent · 1 year ago

like democracy, crowds at best give you the lowest common denominator, at worst, mobs

Don Jones - VentureDeal · 1 year ago

It depends on the crowd, just as it depends on the person.

Noah David Simon · 1 year ago

Seesmic video reply from Disqus.

pacificpelican · 1 year ago

Well said, Dave.
But I think "it's even worse than you think."
What the typical crowd sourcing guru is trying to do is actually build a personality cult around himself as an individual "visionary" by harnessing the mob.
You can probably think of some examples.

terra210 · 1 year ago

The weak are drawn to belonging like the drowning towards life boats. taking the less known path of the individual is more risky, and convoluted, but it is also a constant unfolding. Thanks to artist Ben Mamoud for this thought, so long ago.

But having said that; we are neither one or the other. It is not a dichotomy. It is a landscape of crowds, punctuated periodically with concentrated moments emerging from individuals, which can be heard. If you believe too strongly in one or the other you become culturally blind.

scott crawford · 1 year ago

Great post.
"When you mash us all together you miss the point." Amen to that.
And had to chuckle when I read," I don't like it cause it's cheap, it's always used by people who want something for nothing." Ahh the resounding, good-to-bone thwack of hammer connecting square on the head of nail. Craft lives. And inspires. Thanks.

Val Pishva · 1 year ago

Most people that hang out in the early adopter/tech blog circles are very entrepreneurial. Crowdsourcing upsets entrepreneurial minded people because as you say the corporations are trying to get something for nothing. But crowdsourcing creates alot of noise and little signal because almost anyone is allowed to participate.

Hypothetically, if i gave a large corporation 10 crowdsourced ideas and by magic i was able to assure them that "one of these ideas will develop into a groundbreaking concept that will revolutionize your industry", what do you think are the chances that they will be able to capitalize on it?

steveballmer · 1 year ago

I kinda agree with you here!

Neal Jansons · 1 year ago

I have to say I agree. The entire thrust of the new technology and social media is a new kind of notion of identity, and there are always those who want to co-opt any other identity into their own for their own purposes. I don't like the terms much either. I also don't like how those who aren't in the midst of social media and the new technologies just see them as a new way to cash in using the old methods, rather than a real shift in how things are being done.
Nice post.

gmintchell · 1 year ago

You are exactly correct. Thank you for expressing it.

sjcobrien · 1 year ago

Call me old fashioned, but...I think Crowdsourcing still makes sense. Yes, to some degree everyone is an army of one online. But at various times, these individuals come together around a project, idea, or discussion. And then they disperse. Crowdsourcing creates a kind of temporary institution that then fades away after accomplishing its task. The 'Net facilitates this in a timely, efficient manner (hopefully).

Johnborthwick · 1 year ago

Terms like crowdsourcing and the long tail take meaningful human experiences and wrap them up in a package so they can be used as tools for traditional marketing. An ideas start and end with a person -- that person doesnt want to be sourced they want to be treated like another human. Its so easy within big organizations to get wrapped up in this language and loose sight of what it means and the unforeseen consequences of packaging up an idea. The result is that over time the terms becoming meaningless -- then its time to move on to the next one.

bob stepno · 1 year ago

Looking for a more positive word for "tapping the collective wisdom of lots of individuals," I had a"Doh" moment: For full-time reporters telling important stories, "get more sources" always has been the standard approach, not a special category. Maybe we don't need a special term, or won't need one for long.

Rupert Watson · 1 year ago

Dave

I think the idea behind the Long Tail is that the people at the head are part of the crowd (i.e. Britney Spears fans) and the people down the tail (i.e. Joni Mitchell fans) are the individualists.