Crowdsourcing: Not such a bad thing?

As other posters have noted, the second half of Carr’s The Big Switch reads like a parade of horribles. He touches on various problems that we can expect from ever-increasing internet use and connectivity, which contradicts his seemingly optimistic take on the future of utility computing in the first half of the book.

One of the primary areas of concern Carr mentions is “crowdsourcing”—a business model in which a company allows users to generate their own amateur content as opposed to paying professional employees to do the same tasks. (page 142). Carr elaborates on the threat crowdsourcing poses to professionals, such a “journalists, editors, photographers, researchers, analysts, librarians” and others who can be replaced by the public for free. Even the number of police officers could be lessened, Carr explains, through the use of the public to monitor illegal immigrants crossing borders. (page 138). Carr seems to discuss crowdsourcing with an air of disapproval. Indeed, there are probably many people, especially professionals, who decry the use of cheap or free labor from the public instead of trained professionals. I think that some of these concerns are overblown, however, and in fact, the rise of crowdsourcing may actually be a positive development that can help combat some of the other dangers Carr sees in the future.

Democratic Values

Carr writes about the potential for polarization and balkanization as the Internet has made it easier for people to seek out content that is ideologically in tune with their own beliefs. (page 159). This has larger implications for the fate of a democratic society (see Ross’s post and Derek and Vikas’s comments).

Crowdsourcing, however, pushes back against some of these fears for democracy. Crowdsourcing can be taken not as the death knell for professionals, but rather as proof that the masses will participate in democratic society if it is easy to do so. The rise of news blogs and other commentating sites shows that people are no longer satisfied with passively registering the opinions of professional experts; instead, they want to be involved themselves. They no longer only want the opinion of an expert; they want to share their own opinions. People want to interact with the news; they want to discuss, organize, and even create the news stories themselves. Technology has made it easier than ever for so-called citizen reporters to use cameras and phones to record events as they are happening and then share them with the world. Crowdsourcing takes the immediacy provided by 24-7 cable news channels and increases it. Internet users no longer have to wait to discuss an event with people at work the next day or call into CSPAN at a specific time. They can simply post and comment on news stories in real time online. People can drive the news themselves instead of waiting for editors and journalists to tell them what is important. This is not a harmful development. Politicians are always decrying the lack of participation by citizens, particularly young people, in our democracy. Granted, the advent of news blogs may not mean that more people vote, but it does mean that more people are engaged in and have ownership of issues of local and national concern.

Moreover, although we probably will still see polarization effects, crowdsourcing allows for diverse point of views to be contributed. We already see polarization effects in old media—Fox News Channel, Air America, CNN, NPR, etc… Even without the Internet, liberals and conservatives already tend to categorize certain sources of information as friendly or unfriendly. And, some will argue that contributors to Fox News, CNN and other sites are primarily conservative or liberal reporters. With crowdsourcing, though, we might see a wider range of viewpoints simply because a myriad of people contribute to site. For example, because so many diverse people contribute to Wikipedia, articles are often unbiased—or at least, present multiple sides of a controversy. In fact, if an article seems to be too one-sided users can flag it as being unfair or biased. This is not to say that liberals still will not flock to liberal sites and conservatives still will not flock to conservative sites, but, at the very least, it is easier for a liberal to post something on a conservative site than it is for a liberal to get a report broadcasted on Fox News.

Social Interaction

Another of Carr’s Internet concerns is the potential for isolation due to a lack of human interaction. As Sarah points out, some of these concerns may be overblown because most people do have a need for some human interaction, even if they do not care about interacting with a grocery store clerk. And while crowdsourcing cannot provide the answer to worries about lack of face-to-face human contact, it does push back against concerns of decreasing interaction.

Many user-generated content sites show that people do have a need to create interactive communities, where issues can be discussed. Such sites create communities around the ideas being shared, allowing people to debate with and draw wisdom from other posters. These sites may or may not be discussing “important” issues like politics or foreign policy, but nevertheless they can pave the way for interaction between posters.

In fact, most of these sites exist because people want to interact with each other—perhaps they want to keep in touch with friends (Facebook, Myspace), expose their creativity to the world (Youtube), or even just contribute to something for others to learn from (Wikipedia). User-generated content sites can also provide the impetus for face-to-face interaction by posting about local events, parties, or organizing conventions. As Carr explains, there are a variety of reasons people contribute their own content (page 139), and most of these reasons can be seen as a desire for interaction with others.

Moreover, the egalitarian aspects of the Internet and crowdsourcing—everyone has a chance to participate—will make people feel less isolated and more like part of a community, even if it is an online community. People can find blogs or other content relating to their own experiences, which can go a long way towards reducing isolation. Those users who searched for things like “how to tell your family you’re a victim of incest” and “can you adopt after a suicide attempt” (page 186) may have found advice and/or comfort in a Wikipedia entry or online group support. In fact, these users might have been too embarrassed to discuss their problems in a face-to-face interaction, but the Internet allowed them to interact with people anonymously.

Conclusion

There are valid concerns with crowdsourcing, though I think Carr and others worry a little too much. There will still be a need for professional reporting, for example. People do want and need expertise in many areas. Amateur blogs will never totally replace newspapers, although, as Carr discusses, newspapers will need to change their business models to respond to changes in the way people view news. Crowdsourcing though can be a very positive tool, which helps alleviate other concerns about the Internet. The public interest in crowdsourcing should be seen as a good development for the future of democracy in terms of participation, and it should be seen as a counterpoint to fears of isolation.

Comments

[Frank_B]

I don't think Carr stresses the isolation point much, but I entirely agree with your point. I'm sure a lot of us have met people through these sites. I met one of my best friends back home on as a fellow Wikipedia.

That said, I'm not convinced there's a good answer for Carr/Sunstein's polarization point. We have an endless stream of commentary now, but is that really a good thing if it's sectarian polemics? I'm not so sure.

You talk about breaking the hegemony of newspapermen telling us what's important, but I wonder who is in the best position to produce a well-informed populace. Is it the people themselves, with the aid of Google news, or the editor of the New York Times? Before answering this question, consider popular media.

To me Carr's arguments about Crowdsourcing seemed like a less frothing version of the arguments in Andrew Keen's Cult of the Amateur. According to some sources, Carr actually coined the expression "Cult of the Amateur" even though it doesn't once appear in this book. But there's some light between them. Unlike Keen, Carr thinks Web 2.0 is merely the fulfillment of degenerate mainstream media. Carr thinks that only certain kinds of professionals and certain kinds of journalists are threatened.

They have a truncated discussion about it here:
http://www.podtech.net/home/3796/the-barnes-and-noble-debate-cult-of-the-amatuer

For what it's worth, I think Carr's comments about the YouTube economy must be correct. The top sites according to Alexa are several search engines (harvesting user responses), social networking sites (MySpace, Facebook, Orkut), and a couple of sites that straightforwardly thrive on user-generated content (Wikipedia, YouTube). It's a bad time to content professional like a photojournalist, because there are indeed armies of people willing and able to produce content for free.

[Frank_B]

Ah, Carr did coin the term "cult of the amateur," Keen says so himself on his blog. The term comes from this writing: http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2005/10/the_amorality_o.php

Carr on Keen: http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2006/02/the_new_narciss.php

[Resveratrol]

The laboratory stock we used originated from near Smith's Lake, New South Wales, Australia. After capture, the stock was bred for four generations in captivity before the start of this experiment. We mated 52 stock males to 7 dams each, resulting in 301 families, as some dams did not produce any offspring. For each family we collected 12 offspring and reared them individually. In total, 86% of animals reached adulthood (n 3121). We measured nightly calling effort for 3 males per family on day 10, day 25, and...