15
edits
Changes
Talk:Criticism of crowdsourcing (view source)
Revision as of 08:59, 9 October 2008
, 08:59, 9 October 2008→Consider the Crowdsource
*** 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)
'''PW:''' The whole idea of "crowd sourcing" as it relates to Wikis is a fallacy. First of all, not everyone has access to a computer and of those that do, not everyone is necessarily able to forcibly vehicle their point of view effectively against the "Voice of the Crowd". The demographics of Wikipedia already show the inherent problems with calling what is produced "the sum of all human knowledge" as there are clearly elements of the subset of humans who are not present in the demographics of Wikipedia. So, what is happening in Web 2.0 is clearly not "crowd" sourcing, but the re-enforcement of the idea that "we are those who define reality". It's a celebration of "Us", which implies a "them" and the division that this implies. The WP:En experience serves very well as a test case for this hypothesis. So, perhaps the "crowd sourcing" angle is too limitative and not the entire phenomenon?
'''NR:''' I actually do not have two of the things that you mention (I've expanded on this via e-mail). Anyway, 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. I also agree, it's probably not possible (or prudent) to use "Wikipedia" as part of the domain name. — [[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>
'''NR:''' I actually do not have two of the things that you mention (I've expanded on this via e-mail). Anyway, 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. I also agree, it's probably not possible (or prudent) to use "Wikipedia" as part of the domain name. — [[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>