Crowdsourcing: Fact or Fiction?

Up until this week, never heard of the term "crowdsourcing," though I have heard of the general concept, especially with reference to Wikipedia. As Dan Woods defines the word in his article in Forbes, it is "crowds creating solutions appeals to our desire to believe that working together we can do anything."

After reading the assigned articles, however, it seems that online collaboration is more of a dream. The reality seems to be that there is a single driving force behind any innovation. Woods went on to say that "in terms of innovation [the notion of crowdsourcing] is just ridiculous." On the reality of crowdsourcing, Woods believes that "What really happens in crowdsourcing as it is practiced in wide variety of contexts ... is that a problem is broadcast to a large number of people with varying forms of expertise. Then individuals motivated by obsession, competition, money or all three apply their individual talent to creating a solution." Those who point to Wikipedia as the ultimate form of crowdsourcing are rebuffed by Chris Wilson on Slate who states, "According to researchers in Palo Alto, 1 percent of Wikipedia users are responsible for about half of the site's edits."

So does that mean that crowdsourcing is a farce? Not necessarily. The popular definition of the term is misleading, creating an image of a powerful ecosystem of developers working on projects as a group to lead us into the world of tomorrow. By this definition, crowdsourcing is fiction. However, based on a literal definition, the concept of crowdsourcing can be good for fresh ideas and goals that individuals can work to accomplish. Input from others during the developmental stages can be implemented, but that does not constitute as "crowdsourcing" per se. As Woods believes, innovation is driven by an obsessed individual who truly wants to make a difference.