In the past two years crowdsourcing has often popped up as a Web 2.0 buzz word, but there are a few important questions that few have asked since the discussion on the phenomenon started: what exactly entails crowdsourcing and is it sustainable?
That’s exactly what Scott Belsky, of behence, and Jeffrey Kalmikoff, of Digg and formerly Threadless, attempted to answer Saturday in “The Era of Crowdsourcing: Guiding Principles.”
They used the definition coined by Jeff Howe, contributing editor at Wired magazine: “Crowdsourcing is the act of taking a job traditionally performed by a designated agent (usually an employee) and outsourcing it to an undefined, generally large group of people in the form of an open call.”
Kalmikoff said Howe made a good definition, but it’s broad and all encompassing. He said the practical understanding of crowdsourcing could use “a bit of an evolution.”
He said there are three prongs to crowdsourcing. The first is crowd sourcing wisdom. Wikipedia a good example of this, because people can fix a typo or add a new fact.
The second is crowdsourcing labor: Mechanical turk or traditional spec contests are good examples of this. This is basically an open call to come and complete a task that is needed.
They said the key was to harnassing both: wisdom and labor. Perhaps with no small amount of bias Kalmikoff cited Digg and threadless as good examples. He said the labor side of submitting to Digg is its users scouring the internet to find good articles to submit, that no one else has submitted. The wisdom side is the rest of the users either digging the article or burying it, deciding if the rest of the world needs to see this.
How crowdsourcing works, and in what ways it works were both extremely interesting. But what I was truly fascinated by was why a project might not work. Kalmikoff said there was a difference between a community and a crowd. A crowd can disband at any point, like if your at a rock concert, and you leave, you’re no longer apart of that crowd. But a community is perpetual. When you leave the concert you’re still a fan of the band, and you are going to continue giving the band your money by buying songs online, merchandise or going to more concerts. The community member puts work into the community, and it becomes self perpetual.
Furthermore, a threat to a crowd sourced business or project would be if the community members don’t support each other. The example used would be a football team versus a strip club. In a football team one member’s failure could be the whole team’s failure. So they support each other and try to improve each other. At a strip club, there’s no motivation to help one another. Only one girl can walk away with the most money at the end of the night. This goes back to being a community versus being a crowd. In a community, everyone wants to see the project succeed, so, in theory, they’ll help the other members improve the quality of their work.
Another risk to a crowd sourced project is careless engagement. If the sources don’t care about the quality of the work done, then they won’t strive to see the project has good input, and, just as importantly, they won’t work to keep bad input out.
Belsky and Kalmikoff ended the session by putting forth three questions we should all ask about the crowdsourcing model,
#1 – Can it foster community?
-If there’s incentive for conversation and learning
-If there’s incentive to engage beyond a specific transaction
-If there’s a culture of collaboration.
#2 does it tap collective wisdom?
-If, in gaining opinion or insight, the whole is greater than the sum of its part.
#3 Does it nurture participatnts?
-If work benefits reputation
-If participants are building relationships
-If resources aren’t wasted – (wasted neurons)
-If the terms and facts are crystal clear
