Week Six- Crowdsourcing
Since the start of this blog, we’ve explored the advances of technology and several different devices and services that have altered the way we interact with one another. As technology continues to grow and social media continues to blossom, the margin between humans and technology is slowly getting thinner and thinner. More and more each day, devices and services are created to help humans perform and/or communicate better. These advances have led to many life-changing contributions and provided easier ways for people to complete tasks. While the burst of access appears to be a great change for mankind, the amount of content that has entered the cyber world is now startling. With so many people able to access the internet and the internet becoming a open forum, literally anyone, anywhere can make a contribution to the world wide web, regardless true or false. Without any expertise, credentials or authority, many individuals have found a way to use their access as a way to influence others and business see it.
Since the early 1990s, the Internet has been billed as the greatest agent of change since the Industrial Revolution. With the 2004 launch of Facebook and the 2008 creation of the microblogging site Twitter, user-generated content has exploded with an estimated 2 billion social media users worldwide (Anwar, 2011). The popularity of the internet didn’t take long nor has its popularity decreased. With billions of people using social media and the internet, one could only anticipate many different personalities and opinions when online. Luckily, for those billions of users, the internet makes it easier for people to say what they want and then share it with others. This increases the chances of the internet no longer being a digital encyclopedia of facts but more like a virtual graffiti wall that anyone can write on.
Is There A Such Thing As Too Much Freedom???......
Is the internet the reason people are so judgmental? Does the freedom to post what you like make people feel they can post anything? Are users abusing the freedom of the web? These questions come to mind when I find myself showered with countless articles about the same topic but exhibiting different results. The research becomes difficult to gather due to the conflicting narratives created by unauthorized individuals that want to insert their opinion on the matter. In many cases, the internet has provided many individuals with the opportunity to inform and educate others. This is beneficial when the information and content provided is factual and contributes to the progression of knowledge on a particular matter. When factual information is mixed with false information, researchers have to then vet the information that they discovered to ensure they are sharing the correct information. Gathering false information and sharing it, has the power to push the author’s narrative and further confuse individuals who review the conflicting information. Taking the time to ensure that the information that is posted on the internet is correct shouldn’t be a task of the viewer but unfortunately, readers are accountable in ensuring that they are consuming the correct information.
Public Opinion vs. Big Name….
This new sense of responsibility grants businesses the opportunity to use the public not only as consumers but as contributors. Several online bloggers are now published authors for sharing their content with big name magazines or businesses. Usually, these are individuals that provide insight that is ground breaking, informative, helpful, and/or relatable to the public. This reduces the search for content as businesses have found ways to work with others outside the company for material. Some relationships lead to full time employment, while other situations are based upon the terms of the agreement. There is a bright side to sharing the appropriate information for businesses and for the public. Technological advances in everything from product design software to digital video cameras are breaking down the cost barriers that once separated amateurs from professionals. Hobbyists, part-timers, and dabblers suddenly have a market for their efforts, as smart companies in industries as disparate as pharmaceuticals and television discover ways to tap the latent talent of the crowd. The labor isn't always free, but it costs a lot less than paying traditional employees. It's not outsourcing; it's crowdsourcing (Howe, 2006).
You Get What You Pay For….
For employers that choose to use crowdsourcing as a way to gather content and/or employees, there are several factors that should be considered. Crowdsourcing as one particular form of participatory social media, of which other examples include open-source production, blogging, and video and photo-sharing sites. Crowdsourcing distinguishes itself by involving an organization-participant relationship, where the organization engages in a top-down, managed process to seek a bottom-up, open input by users in an online community (Aitamurto, 2011). This sounds like an opportunity for many individuals to grow and blossom but it also opens the doors for individuals who do not qualify to provide input as well. With such a broad and open request, crowdsourcing could produce a lot of feedback but that doesn’t guarantee that the feedback will be beneficial for the project at hand. Oftentimes, individuals who respond to the request of companies are not educated enough on a particular topic to influence others to make a decision on the topic. Companies have to be very careful to ensure that the content and the contributors they connect with are providing information that is truthful and honest. This has the chance to give an individual a platform, as well as, it has the opportunity to give an individual the wrong information. Companies and contributors have to be aware of the content they publish to ensure that both parties are equally doing right by the public. This doesn’t have just a local impact but the negative effects of false information can globally impact a company or corporation. Positive information can be equally utilized on a global platform to increase the company’s visibility and credibility. All in all, the quality of the content shared is key when companies began to connect with the public as a source for information.
Source:
1. Anwar, Y. (2011, June). So much for digital democracy: New study finds elite viewpoints dominate online content. Retrieved from http://news.berkeley.edu/2011/06/07/digital-democracy/
2. Howe, J. (2006, June). The Rise of Crowdsourcing. Retrieved from https://www.wired.com/2006/06/crowds/
3. Aitamurto, T. (2011, June). The Promise of Idea Crowdsourcing: –Benefits, Contexts, Limitations. Retrieved from http://www.academia.edu/963662/The_Promise_of_Idea_Crowdsourcing_Benefits_Contexts_Limitations
Since the early 1990s, the Internet has been billed as the greatest agent of change since the Industrial Revolution. With the 2004 launch of Facebook and the 2008 creation of the microblogging site Twitter, user-generated content has exploded with an estimated 2 billion social media users worldwide (Anwar, 2011). The popularity of the internet didn’t take long nor has its popularity decreased. With billions of people using social media and the internet, one could only anticipate many different personalities and opinions when online. Luckily, for those billions of users, the internet makes it easier for people to say what they want and then share it with others. This increases the chances of the internet no longer being a digital encyclopedia of facts but more like a virtual graffiti wall that anyone can write on.
Is There A Such Thing As Too Much Freedom???......
Is the internet the reason people are so judgmental? Does the freedom to post what you like make people feel they can post anything? Are users abusing the freedom of the web? These questions come to mind when I find myself showered with countless articles about the same topic but exhibiting different results. The research becomes difficult to gather due to the conflicting narratives created by unauthorized individuals that want to insert their opinion on the matter. In many cases, the internet has provided many individuals with the opportunity to inform and educate others. This is beneficial when the information and content provided is factual and contributes to the progression of knowledge on a particular matter. When factual information is mixed with false information, researchers have to then vet the information that they discovered to ensure they are sharing the correct information. Gathering false information and sharing it, has the power to push the author’s narrative and further confuse individuals who review the conflicting information. Taking the time to ensure that the information that is posted on the internet is correct shouldn’t be a task of the viewer but unfortunately, readers are accountable in ensuring that they are consuming the correct information.
Public Opinion vs. Big Name….
This new sense of responsibility grants businesses the opportunity to use the public not only as consumers but as contributors. Several online bloggers are now published authors for sharing their content with big name magazines or businesses. Usually, these are individuals that provide insight that is ground breaking, informative, helpful, and/or relatable to the public. This reduces the search for content as businesses have found ways to work with others outside the company for material. Some relationships lead to full time employment, while other situations are based upon the terms of the agreement. There is a bright side to sharing the appropriate information for businesses and for the public. Technological advances in everything from product design software to digital video cameras are breaking down the cost barriers that once separated amateurs from professionals. Hobbyists, part-timers, and dabblers suddenly have a market for their efforts, as smart companies in industries as disparate as pharmaceuticals and television discover ways to tap the latent talent of the crowd. The labor isn't always free, but it costs a lot less than paying traditional employees. It's not outsourcing; it's crowdsourcing (Howe, 2006).
You Get What You Pay For….
For employers that choose to use crowdsourcing as a way to gather content and/or employees, there are several factors that should be considered. Crowdsourcing as one particular form of participatory social media, of which other examples include open-source production, blogging, and video and photo-sharing sites. Crowdsourcing distinguishes itself by involving an organization-participant relationship, where the organization engages in a top-down, managed process to seek a bottom-up, open input by users in an online community (Aitamurto, 2011). This sounds like an opportunity for many individuals to grow and blossom but it also opens the doors for individuals who do not qualify to provide input as well. With such a broad and open request, crowdsourcing could produce a lot of feedback but that doesn’t guarantee that the feedback will be beneficial for the project at hand. Oftentimes, individuals who respond to the request of companies are not educated enough on a particular topic to influence others to make a decision on the topic. Companies have to be very careful to ensure that the content and the contributors they connect with are providing information that is truthful and honest. This has the chance to give an individual a platform, as well as, it has the opportunity to give an individual the wrong information. Companies and contributors have to be aware of the content they publish to ensure that both parties are equally doing right by the public. This doesn’t have just a local impact but the negative effects of false information can globally impact a company or corporation. Positive information can be equally utilized on a global platform to increase the company’s visibility and credibility. All in all, the quality of the content shared is key when companies began to connect with the public as a source for information.
Source:
1. Anwar, Y. (2011, June). So much for digital democracy: New study finds elite viewpoints dominate online content. Retrieved from http://news.berkeley.edu/2011/06/07/digital-democracy/
2. Howe, J. (2006, June). The Rise of Crowdsourcing. Retrieved from https://www.wired.com/2006/06/crowds/
3. Aitamurto, T. (2011, June). The Promise of Idea Crowdsourcing: –Benefits, Contexts, Limitations. Retrieved from http://www.academia.edu/963662/The_Promise_of_Idea_Crowdsourcing_Benefits_Contexts_Limitations
Comments
Post a Comment