Let's Talk Semantics: What Do You Think of the Word "Crowdsourcing"

It's a good week for me to be guest blogging. The topic of "crowdsourcing" was brought up by none other than Dave Winer, who recently explained in response to a Twitter question from Jay Rosen, why he doesn't like the word. I obviously can't speak on behalf of Jeff Howe, but since I've also given the topic thought I'll at least put my thoughts on the table.

Dave writes...

I don't like it cause it's cheap, it's always used by people who want something for nothing....Bottom-line: I don't think of myself as part of a crowd when I write on the Internet. When you describe me that way I don't like it.

As you can see in the comments, I've gone back and forth with the word myself - but have made my peace which I'll explain below. For proof of how long I've been mulling over the word "crowdsourcing" see this NewAssignment post which I edited in late 2006. In it Chris Messina and Tara Hunt brought up a point that stuck with me for some time which is that "crowdsourcing" sounds like exploitation. I believe that ethos comes from its relation to "outsourcing" which in the 80's had a successful campaign to turn it into something un-American and the source of many woes. As a child of the 80's outsourcing to me = bad.

Another reason why I had issues with the word was just because I suffered from overload. I worked on Assignment Zero which was "crowdsourced journalism" and from there I was Jeff Howe's research assistant on the book "crowdsourcing." I don't think anybody can blame me for being overloaded. I spent my fair share of time using it a lot and after the book was done being researched it disappeared from my vocabulary completely.

But now that I've had time to step back and decompress I no longer have qualms with the word. Why? Well first, let's take a closer look at what Dave wrote in his piece.

"One more reason -- it's not useful because it doesn't actually model what's going on. In the 20th century everything was about mass markets and centralization. You could explain things with concepts like crowds. In this century we're going the other way."

Here's where I have to respectfully disagree with Dave. I think the word "crowdsourcing" is VERY useful for describing what is happening. Yes, there is a lot of one-to-one conversation that is happening, but there is still (and always will be) one-to-many conversations. Except now those conversations can be interactive. You can SOURCE the crowd you are marketing your message to. You can ask them for feedback.

In fact, I'd argue that mass marketing isn't disappearing, it's increasing. I can now mass market myself if I want! Twenty years ago it would have been very difficult for a 26-year-old nobody to market themselves. The cost of marketing you or your product has gone down. And the ability to rely on the crowd to help you define your product/positioning, etc, is easy because the modes of communication are there. Just because the audience can talk back doesn't mean they aren't an audience. It just means the relationship is different and you can make them part of the process.

I can't think of another word that captures the phenomena of Wikipedia, iStockphoto, Threadless, etc, better than crowdsourcing. Perhaps I could think of a phrase, but a single word? Believe me, if I had a better word I'd put it in this post and then I'd have the book coming out this August. But the truth is - crowdsourcing is a single word that captures it very well.

I think because of its seeming connection to "outsourcing," crowdsourcing gets a negative connotation even before people take the time to become familiar with how it's defined. This is too bad, because I think the word could also be connected to "open source" which leaves a great taste in people's mouth. In fact one way of describing "crowdsourcing" is: "the application of open source practices to fields outside of software."

Let's take a look at the white paper definition: "the act of taking a task traditionally performed by an employee or contractor, and outsourcing it to an undefined, generally large group of people, in the form of an open call."

I understand Dave's point: Nobody wants to be "part of the crowd." But people do want to be winners. To be a "winner" you have to be picked out from the crowd. That's the Threadless model. There are countless crowdsourcing startups that rest on the notion of competition and reward. Take Innocentive, they create a small marketplace with crowds where somebody comes out a winner, having produced something of high value - and they are rewarded. So it's not exploitation, nobody is forced into anything and like all things if people are good at what they do - they are rewarded. Want to prove you are a "winner" - first you need to rise up amongst the crowd. If you aren't competing, you can't be a winner.

As Dave notes you wouldn't say to your wife she was "part of the crowd you were thinking of marrying" and I certainly wouldn't recommend that. But that description isn't inaccurate. And as Dave knows - it's all about positioning. You might say to your wife "of all the women in the world, you were the one for me." Both statements are accurate, but the second one won't put you in the dog house. So - whether or not a company uses the word "crowd" (and I can understand why it's less appropriate at times) the fact is - the 'crowd' is part of the scenario.

I'd rather call a spade a spade then pander to my personal notions of self-importance. Yes, I am part of the crowd. That doesn't mean I can't be a winner, produce original work and get recognition for it. That isn't easy - but neither is life. And guess what, you live it amongst a crowd. Let's not pretend that the crowd doesn't exist.

From Fight Club: "You are not special. You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake. You're the same decaying organic matter as everything else."

Comments

[Gerard]

Hmmm... I can understand Dave Winer's apprehension at the word.

On the other hand, you're not an individual until you stand away from the crowd. And, the only way I know how to do that is to step forward when called / needed by others.

So I would think of crowdsourcing as opportunity to become an individual and put your talents to the use of the community; contribute something to someone or some group that needs it. If you're only putting your talents to use for your own benefit, then you're not really going to stand out from the crowd.

[Digidave]

Gerard
I understand Dave's apprehension as well. I wouldn't have written the article if I didn't. I don't claim to have the definitive answer either. But that's why I wrote this - to try and keep the discussion going.

[Chris Messina]

This was my post on the topic from 2006:

http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2006/10/12/crowdsourcing-the-neue-sweatshop-labor/

A little polemic, but I appreciate the sentiment that I was expressing.

I think the biggest threat of the "crowdsourcing" meme is not with people who use these technologies or apply the term to instances where you're "putting out a call to an unknown audience" ... ("crowdcalling?" "lazyweb"?). The problem is when this term is used by people who don't get the web, don't get networks and don't empathize with the so-called members of the "crowd" whom they wish to tap into.

The problem that it sets up dangerous expectations and approaches that become exploitative in execution when the term breaks into foreign cultures. For comparison, it's key that it's called "open source" and not "free software" -- and this distinction has been key to maintaining the power of the idea -- that it's very hard to corrupt the meme of "openness" -- you can only dilute it (see Facebook's platform). Crowdsourcing, AFAIC, is broken from the get-go because it highlights and emphasizes the anonymous and "cheap" aspect of community-based peer-production. This is demeaning in my view, and taken from a longer perspective, is now a sustainable approach to utilizing networks for innovation or production.

SO, I agree with Dave's point and think this conversation is an important one.

[Walter Gillett]

Your explanation of "crowdsourcing" makes sense.

On a related note, it’s a shame that the word “outsourcing” has gotten such a bad rep. The effect is to spread wealth across nations by giving, for example, engineers in India the chance to participate in developed country work. Sure they get paid less, but there’s nothing exploitative about it – they are choosing the work and would be worse off without it. Engineering salaries in India are also increasing at an exponential rate. (On the other hand, H1Bs in this country *are* exploitative since they lock people down to particular employer.) Yes, engineers in the U.S. then have to compete, but in a global economy competition is inescapable. As a U.S. engineer, you can either compete with the engineer who just got hired from India by IBM, or you can compete with that person working for Infosys, or for an IBM subsidiary in India (that might have been forced to set up in India because of broken U.S. immigration policy). Makes little difference.

[kraloyun]

Your explanation of "crowdsourcing" makes sense.

On a related note, it’s a shame that the word “outsourcing” has gotten such a bad rep. The effect is to spread wealth across nations by giving, for example, engineers in India the chance to participate in developed country work. Sure they get paid less, but there’s nothing exploitative about it – they are choosing the work and would be worse off without it. Engineering salaries in India are also increasing at an exponential rate. (On the other hand, H1Bs in this country *are* exploitative since they lock people down to particular employer.) Yes, engineers in the U.S. then have to compete, but in a global economy competition is inescapable. As a U.S. engineer, you can either compete with the engineer who just got hired from India by IBM, or you can compete with that person working for Infosys, or for an IBM subsidiary in India (that might have been forced to set up in India because of broken U.S. immigration policy). Makes little difference.

[Air Jordan 1]

I wish more people would write blogs like this that are really fun to read. With all the fluff floating around on the net, it is rare to read a blog like this instead.

[Turbo fire]

Thank for the amazing content on your blog, I am very curious in this article and you have really helped me. I have just told a few of my friends about this on FaceBook and they love your content just as much as I do.

[chaussures femmes]

We have gotten many great comments from our customers and earn a good reputation in foreign makerts, more than 90% customers are satisfied with our products and service, till now our online members are beyond 80,000. As of right now, we currently serve customers from over 18 countries, and we are still growing. We really hope to expand our business through cooperation with individuals and companies from around the world.

[North Face Down]

This article tell the reality of very important organization and clearly gives the reasons that what they are doing. Very information article and actions should be taken against such organizations

[Timberland Boots Sale]

As of right now, we currently serve customers from over 18 countries, and we are still growing. We really hope to expand our business through cooperation with individuals and companies from around the world.