What is crowdsourcing? "Crowdsourcing is an online, distributed problem-solving and production model...Some examples include Threadless, iStockphoto, InnoCentive, the Goldcorp Challenge, and user-generated advertising contests" (Brabham 1). Many of us have been introduced to at least a couple different examples of crowdsourcing, but have most likely never thought much of it. Until reading this article I never thought of what it really was--a cheap and easy way for a company to have the public solve their problems while still making a gigantic profit. When you see the Doritos Crash the Superbowl commercial contest, you think it is just a fun way to have people make their own commercials. This saves Doritos time and money. You can also look at something like Threadless--they do not have to design any shirts AND they know that people will like the shirts and buy them because they have so many people rating each tshirt. This idea is a phenomenal one, especially from a business standpoint. There are a few things that especially spark my interest though; how the public knows the answers, motivation, and future effects this could have.
Okay, so the question of how the public knows the answers to the questions that companies propose, is also known as "Crowd Wisdom". The majority of the people who solve the problems are not experts in the topic. How is it that they can solve a problem that an expert has spent so much time trying to solve and still cannot? A great example of this is InnoCentive, a place where R&D questions are posted. These are generally science related questions, that people have been working to answer for a couple years+ and cannot figure out. When released to the public through InnoCentive, it could be a physics related question but the person who figures it out will most likely not be a physics specialist. They could be a biologist, chemist, etc. In Brabhams article, he quotes, "The web provides a perfect technology capable of aggregating millions of disparate, independent ideas in the way markets and intelligent voting systems do, without the dangers of ‘too much communication’ and compromise (Surowiecki, 2004: xix)." When people work in groups, there can be too much communication, compromise, and loss of a simple answer. Sometimes working with a team of experts, people will get too critical and complicate a problem, so someone looking from the outside can have a more clear perspective on it. This idea is hard for me to understand completely, but the more I think about it, the more it makes sense. It is a miraculous idea and it is amazing that it actually works.
Second is motivation. Why do these people solve these problems that are worth millions for a just a very small fraction of the money? What is motivating them to do this? Even though you clearly do not make the money you deserve, the majority of people do this to make money. It is often a side "job" and just to get extra money somehow. Most people probably also see this as a hobby and something fun to do. Personally, when I read about Threadless I was immediately intrigued. I explored the website and made an account right away. I know that you don't make a lot of money, but it is still that chance that you could make some extra money. I love art and design so it is something I would like to do as a hobby to design shirts and see if people like them and if they are cool then potentially make money. It also reminds me of when Cha-Cha started getting bigger. It is not crowdsourcing, but while working for Cha-Cha you only make between 10 and 20 cents per answer you give. This is hardly anything, but when I heard about it I wanted to work for them so bad because I am always on my computer and I thought I might as well make some money while I am just sitting at my comp. For people who have a desk job, and are getting paid to do nothing at their computer, this is an excellent way to stay busy and make even more money. If you answered questions all day long, you could definitely make some extra spending cash. So even though profit from iStockphoto, Threadless, etc. may not be enough to live from, they are great for people who already have jobs and who would enjoy doing the extra work. Other main reasons, are for portfolios, reputaions, and building skills. It is good practice to start working with crowdsourcing to gain experience which is also why people turn to sites like these.
My third concern, to go with my theme, is how will this affect people in the future? Since you can go on Threadless and design shirts straight out of high school and make money, or take random pictures on iStockphoto that happen to be popular, you could make tons of money potentially. This is diminishing the value of higher education. It worries me to think that people feel like with current technology they do not need a college degree anymore. It is possible to make money from these sites, especially if you had the idea to create the site, but the chances of that happening are pretty rare. Most people do not make enough money to live from. I see this having a very strong impact on future generations, especially with technology improving all the time. The next generation will have much different values on different things than what most of us today value. It is a scary thought to me.
An example of crowdsourcing would be that recently Facebook announced that anything put onto Facebook would become the property of Facebook. This is definitely something that bothered a lot of people and outraged the public. For people who are pursuing something like photography, this would be awful because they want to be able to say it is their work, but then Facebook could also claim that it is their property. In order to solve this problem Facebook decided to make their process more involved with the public's opinion. They are asking for feedback on the policies they make and are making it more of a democratic style. You can vote on what you like and don't like about the policies they make and be a part of the decision making, essentially. This is a form of crowdsourcing--they have a problem, are opening it to the public, and then using the best answer to solve the problem.
In conclusion, crowdsourcing is an amazing business model with great potential in my opinion. I think Brabham's idea of using crowdsourcing for non-profit fundraising and donor involvements, etc. are great. However, I am confused on the difference between non-profit crowdsourcing and open sourcing--to me the only difference is that open source involves mainly/only software problems rather than design, education, etc. Crowdsourcing is a model that I can see having a much larger effect in the future.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Convergence.
Until last week's class period about Media Convergence, I had not really thought about the topic. I also had never heard of mash-ups, but after learning about it, I realize I have been seeing them, using them, and subconsciously knowing about them all along.
Media Convergence is three things: Creation, Distribution, and Consumption. You create different media outlets, distribute material to them such as videos, text, internet, etc, and then people consume that material. The convergence is that you take material from different outlets and convert them to be in multiple outlets.
After reading and discussing the topic of Media Convergence, I have found I have some opinions of my own. To an extent, I love the idea, but only to an extent. When I think about different types of media converging to have all the same abilities through them, I don't necessarily like it. I feel like it is an over-load and completely unnecessary. I not normally a person who thinks technology is an over-load and too much to handle, I love everything about all my technological devices and have grown to be dependent of them. Being able to watch TV episodes on my computer is VERY convenient, and in return makes it so I rarely use my TV unless I am watching movies, which sometimes doesn't even cause me to use my TV because I have an 20 inch screen. I love emailing from my phone, or going on the internet. I love doing all of the above on my iPod touch plus listen to any movies and play endless amounts of games. All of these converging medias are great. However, I feel like it is fine how they are. If they were to converge more, it will begin to feel like we are on overload. TV's do not need internet--I feel like being able to go online through TiVo and things like that is pretty much useless...My family has it and my dad thinks it is the coolest thing ever, but he only uses it when he is trying to show people how cool it is, not when he actually needs to go on the internet. Jenkins says "Consumers are learning how to use these different media technologies to bring the flow of media more fully under their control and to interact with other users" (p. 37). This is true, and is something that makes convergence great. We get to participate more in the media, and not just have it handed to us. This blog, for example, is me being in control of a very small portion, but a portion nonetheless of media.
Jenkins also said, "...new forms of cummunity are emerging. These new communities are defined through voluntary temporary and tactical affiliations, are reaffirmed through common intellectual enterprises and emotional investments and are held together through the mutual production and reciprocal exchange of knowledge" (p. 35). This shows that through our online communites--blogs, facebook, twittr, youtube, wikipedia, etc--we can voice our knowledge and let other people know what we know. We learn from these communities and share with each other. Aside from knowledge benefits from online communities, we can stay in touch with friends and family, which is a huge reason many of us are involved in them. We maintain relationships with people that we never see anymore. On the other hand, there are many people who meet people online and become friends by talking and getting to know eachother. Does this benefit our lives? I would argue that it does. Many people who struggle to find someone to understand them or are shy in public or something along those lines are able to be themselves and meet someone just like them through the internet. This is also something that can mess people up psychologically. They may have an alternate personality online and are not actually being themselves. This way they feel they have two lives and maybe their "dream life" online by pretending to be someone they are not. Sorry for that slight tangent.
In closing, I believe that what we have today through media convergence is enough. I think what we have is all we need and more. To expand on what we have would just be a chance for us to say that we did it, but I would bet most of it would go unused. There is a point where technology becomes unnecessary, and I believe this is one of those times. Maybe I will change my mind when something amazing comes out that I realize I will use every day and can't live without, but for now, that is how I feel.
Media Convergence is three things: Creation, Distribution, and Consumption. You create different media outlets, distribute material to them such as videos, text, internet, etc, and then people consume that material. The convergence is that you take material from different outlets and convert them to be in multiple outlets.
After reading and discussing the topic of Media Convergence, I have found I have some opinions of my own. To an extent, I love the idea, but only to an extent. When I think about different types of media converging to have all the same abilities through them, I don't necessarily like it. I feel like it is an over-load and completely unnecessary. I not normally a person who thinks technology is an over-load and too much to handle, I love everything about all my technological devices and have grown to be dependent of them. Being able to watch TV episodes on my computer is VERY convenient, and in return makes it so I rarely use my TV unless I am watching movies, which sometimes doesn't even cause me to use my TV because I have an 20 inch screen. I love emailing from my phone, or going on the internet. I love doing all of the above on my iPod touch plus listen to any movies and play endless amounts of games. All of these converging medias are great. However, I feel like it is fine how they are. If they were to converge more, it will begin to feel like we are on overload. TV's do not need internet--I feel like being able to go online through TiVo and things like that is pretty much useless...My family has it and my dad thinks it is the coolest thing ever, but he only uses it when he is trying to show people how cool it is, not when he actually needs to go on the internet. Jenkins says "Consumers are learning how to use these different media technologies to bring the flow of media more fully under their control and to interact with other users" (p. 37). This is true, and is something that makes convergence great. We get to participate more in the media, and not just have it handed to us. This blog, for example, is me being in control of a very small portion, but a portion nonetheless of media.
Jenkins also said, "...new forms of cummunity are emerging. These new communities are defined through voluntary temporary and tactical affiliations, are reaffirmed through common intellectual enterprises and emotional investments and are held together through the mutual production and reciprocal exchange of knowledge" (p. 35). This shows that through our online communites--blogs, facebook, twittr, youtube, wikipedia, etc--we can voice our knowledge and let other people know what we know. We learn from these communities and share with each other. Aside from knowledge benefits from online communities, we can stay in touch with friends and family, which is a huge reason many of us are involved in them. We maintain relationships with people that we never see anymore. On the other hand, there are many people who meet people online and become friends by talking and getting to know eachother. Does this benefit our lives? I would argue that it does. Many people who struggle to find someone to understand them or are shy in public or something along those lines are able to be themselves and meet someone just like them through the internet. This is also something that can mess people up psychologically. They may have an alternate personality online and are not actually being themselves. This way they feel they have two lives and maybe their "dream life" online by pretending to be someone they are not. Sorry for that slight tangent.
In closing, I believe that what we have today through media convergence is enough. I think what we have is all we need and more. To expand on what we have would just be a chance for us to say that we did it, but I would bet most of it would go unused. There is a point where technology becomes unnecessary, and I believe this is one of those times. Maybe I will change my mind when something amazing comes out that I realize I will use every day and can't live without, but for now, that is how I feel.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Social and Cultural Effects of Technology.
One of the readings this week and the class discussion yesterday really sparked my interest. The essay by Philip Brey entitled "Evaluating the Social and Cultural Implications of the Internet" was specifically what I found interesting. I think the opinions people have about whether or not the internet, and technology in general, are harmful or beneficial to society are intriguing. I personally could never put my finger on which side I am on, but generally lean more towards the idea that technology benefits our lives and makes it easier. However, I do understand where the other side is coming from. There are definitely harmful areas of technology.
Philip Brey's main idea throughout the essay is that there is no right or wrong answer; it depends on your values, and personal opinions. There are a LOT of circumstances to take into consideration, which make it very hard to decide one way or the other which one is correct. Not only does it depend on your values, but it also depends on what you are using the internet for, how old you are, and what specific incidents you have had personally with a benefit or harm from the internet. There are also some areas that are almost always perceived as benefits and harms no matter where you come from, of which the majority of people agree are one or the other. He says, "for instance, nearly everyone agrees that the Internet has the benefit of making a large amount of useful information easily available, and nearly everyone agrees that the Internet can also be harmful by making dangerous, libelous and hateful information available".
Some of the perceived benefits include access to information, information dissemination, communication, developing and maintaining social relations, community formation and social organization, production and commerce, leisure and entertainment, and the list goes on. However, many of these benefits have harms affiliated with them. With access to information there is also information overload, false information, harmful information. There is harmful communication, harmful effects on social relations, etc.
It is inevitable that there will be pros and cons to almost anything--including the Internet and technology. Nothing is perfect. So the question is, is it worth it? Is the convenience of technology worth the possible harms that may come from it? The miscommunications due to lack of emotion behind the words? The false information we may find on Wikipedia? The ability to illegally copy and reproduce digital media, which then causes sales to go down for that specific thing? The psychological problems that may develop from creating an alternative life in cyberspace?
Obviously everyone will have their own opinion. Personally, I think it is worth it. I understand that there are an infinite of possibilities that can happen and may even be harmful, but I think the good is far greater. Communicating with people internationally in a mere second through email, shopping online, getting any question I have answered in minutes or less, the ability to learn anything I want to by looking online, and even being able to publicly post my feelings on this blog, which exercises my freedom of speech--these are all far greater rewards that come from technology than the chance of something happening that is harmful. I feel like for every time something harmful comes from technology for me, there are at least 10 good things that come.
I know that this is just my opinion and I am sure there are many people who will disagree, especially since I love technology so much so perhaps I am a little biased, but I feel like my reasons are valid and I am being fair in my thought process and in determining what me feelings really are. Prior to this article I was undecided, and pretty neutral, most likely because I hadn't given it tons of thought and really analyzed everything that could potentially come from the internet. Either way, I believe technology is great. I love it and I can't get enough of it.
Philip Brey's main idea throughout the essay is that there is no right or wrong answer; it depends on your values, and personal opinions. There are a LOT of circumstances to take into consideration, which make it very hard to decide one way or the other which one is correct. Not only does it depend on your values, but it also depends on what you are using the internet for, how old you are, and what specific incidents you have had personally with a benefit or harm from the internet. There are also some areas that are almost always perceived as benefits and harms no matter where you come from, of which the majority of people agree are one or the other. He says, "for instance, nearly everyone agrees that the Internet has the benefit of making a large amount of useful information easily available, and nearly everyone agrees that the Internet can also be harmful by making dangerous, libelous and hateful information available".
Some of the perceived benefits include access to information, information dissemination, communication, developing and maintaining social relations, community formation and social organization, production and commerce, leisure and entertainment, and the list goes on. However, many of these benefits have harms affiliated with them. With access to information there is also information overload, false information, harmful information. There is harmful communication, harmful effects on social relations, etc.
It is inevitable that there will be pros and cons to almost anything--including the Internet and technology. Nothing is perfect. So the question is, is it worth it? Is the convenience of technology worth the possible harms that may come from it? The miscommunications due to lack of emotion behind the words? The false information we may find on Wikipedia? The ability to illegally copy and reproduce digital media, which then causes sales to go down for that specific thing? The psychological problems that may develop from creating an alternative life in cyberspace?
Obviously everyone will have their own opinion. Personally, I think it is worth it. I understand that there are an infinite of possibilities that can happen and may even be harmful, but I think the good is far greater. Communicating with people internationally in a mere second through email, shopping online, getting any question I have answered in minutes or less, the ability to learn anything I want to by looking online, and even being able to publicly post my feelings on this blog, which exercises my freedom of speech--these are all far greater rewards that come from technology than the chance of something happening that is harmful. I feel like for every time something harmful comes from technology for me, there are at least 10 good things that come.
I know that this is just my opinion and I am sure there are many people who will disagree, especially since I love technology so much so perhaps I am a little biased, but I feel like my reasons are valid and I am being fair in my thought process and in determining what me feelings really are. Prior to this article I was undecided, and pretty neutral, most likely because I hadn't given it tons of thought and really analyzed everything that could potentially come from the internet. Either way, I believe technology is great. I love it and I can't get enough of it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)