Entry #4 : A Quarter of the Way Through

The Myth of Crowdsourcing 

Mr. Woods is a bit of a downer. I love the notion, even if it is possibly false, of crowdsourcing being this wonder filled idea of strangers coming to gather to solve and/ or create. Woods' business POV seems to say the that the idea of crowdsourcing is false because the "crowd"  is really just a group of nerds who have more knowledge than the public therefore are not the "crowd". Even nerds  (using this term respectively) can be a crowd. Directory states a crowd as

a large number of people gathered together, typically in a disorganized or unruly way.

 even if those people are geniuses and in it for themselves they are still the "crowd", disorganized thinkers. People working together on a project created by someone else. So yes, crowdsourcing can be very specific for certain projects but there is no need to dismantle the "crowdsourcing" umbrella title. Crowdsourcing and innovation are peanut butter and jelly.  Even if the innovation is under completely selfish reasons, that idea of innovation is what fuels and keeps the "crowd" working.

2 Reasons Why the Term "Crowdsourcing" Bugs Me 

Grams, too is a downer but in a good way. You have a idea and "money" (or any incentive) you will get content creators working, as Grams states, in a factory. But if you put effort into building a community on strong beliefs the factory workings soon follows. A bit too idealistic for me. Cause if you have ever tried to get people to join a "crowd" or "community" based solely on beliefs/ideals then you know how few participates you'll receive. And those participates will often be like minded creating more a cult less of a crowd. Incentives are necessary to build a crowd // ideals are necessary to maintain it.