Difference between revisions of "Talk:Criticism of crowdsourcing"
Jon Awbrey (talk | contribs) (→Consider the Crowdsource: typo) |
|||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
*** If we mean that the crowd is the source, is that a Good, a Bad, or an Indifferent thing? | *** If we mean that the crowd is the source, is that a Good, a Bad, or an Indifferent thing? | ||
'''JA:''' That's about as far as I get for now. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 13:52, 8 October 2008 (PDT) | '''JA:''' That's about as far as I get for now. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 13:52, 8 October 2008 (PDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''NR:''' That's a better idea for a domain name. It's more descriptive in terms of what the site would actually do. I don't know what I was thinking, really. — [[User:Nathan|<span style="color:#3971DE">'''Nathan'''</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Nathan|<span style="color:#3971DE">'''talk'''</span>]])</sup> <sub>/ <em>22:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)</em></sub> | ||
Revision as of 22:39, 8 October 2008
Notes & Queries
JA: I guess my first criticism would be a worry about the name "crowdsourcing". It clangs me wrong somehow. Jon Awbrey 12:12, 8 October 2008 (PDT)
NR: My thoughts: Do I even have real-world credentials? Now there's a problem. Why not have a message board and a wiki? There are good and bad points to having either one.
NR: On the thought of what domain name to use: I think MimboJimbo.com would be suitable. — Nathan (talk) / 19:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
JA: I've grown weary of fixating on (1) Wikipedia (2) Wikipedia Personae. Yes, most of our concrete data and hard experience comes from those sources — though I did see the very same dynamics in Citizendium despite the one bug fix that Sanger tried to implement — but we need to view that data and experience as cases under generic concepts, and focus on the genus not the individuals. So "MimboJimbo" would probably lead us down the wrong path. Jon Awbrey 12:30, 8 October 2008 (PDT)
Consider the Crowdsource
GK: The only ready synonym for "crowdsourcing" that comes to my mind is "user-generated content", or "Web 2.0". Nathan, you have credentials, in that you have a location, a job, and schooling, which is really all I'm looking for. I think MimboJimbo is way off... I was just mentioning which domains I actually hold claim to. Really, I'm thinking that the domain should be something simple and descriptive (but still available), along the lines of "critiquesofthecrowd.com". -- MyWikiBiz 13:37, 8 October 2008 (PDT)
JA: Okay, let's talk about that. I probably need to start by trying to articulate my inklings, irklings, or reservations about the term.
- When I hear "crowdsource" it calls to mind one of the prime directives of critical thinking, to wit, "Consider The Source!"
- That leads me to ask:
- Is the crowd the source?
- If we mean that the crowd is the source, is that a Good, a Bad, or an Indifferent thing?
- That leads me to ask:
JA: That's about as far as I get for now. Jon Awbrey 13:52, 8 October 2008 (PDT)
NR: That's a better idea for a domain name. It's more descriptive in terms of what the site would actually do. I don't know what I was thinking, really. — Nathan (talk) / 22:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
