http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/03/08/huffington-post-revolution-crowdsourcing-mob/
"Ultimately, crowdsourcing underscores the fallacy of free information: It violates the basic principles upon which our entire economy and culture is based."
This article doesn't really prove anything except that you need to set up a crowd sourcing system correctly. It should be non-profit, for one thing. Huffington Post's example is a good one where people contribute for free and others reap the benefits. This is simply poor design. The owners not only reap the financial rewards ($315 million!) but control content to a large degree as well.
Also, crowd sourcing should be self-policing but monitored, if that makes sense. Wikipedia, for example, is open not only to additions, but to corrections. But above that is a sort of wikipolice who can step into clashes that are not being resolved.
Some sites like digg.com and reddit.com are designed well and simply reward input by having a link upvoted. I guess these sites are for-profit, but in this case the owners don't control content, the readers do.
Internet Collective Action is people organizing in a nonhierarchical manner to accomplish a particular goal. The reward is in the doing, and how much or how little anyone participates is completely voluntary, depending on their abilities and commitment to the goal. By this process amazing things can be accomplished. ICA will grow so long as the Internet is free. http://www.lisamcpherson.org/pc.htm is an example of ICA.
No comments:
Post a Comment