The internet has the ability to enable individuals to influence mass amounts of people through such entities as social networks, advertisements, and blogs because many people around the world can access them. As a result, the internet is responsible for the innovation of some old concepts, such as crowdsourcing. Crowdsourcing has been used as a tactic to detect the public’s interest long before the internet was invented; however, today it is now commonly used to promote creative people, investigate crimes, and to exercise public relations. Although crowdsourcing seems to be very effective strategy, it also reveals some pitfalls.
Modern crowdsourcing can be understood as an online “focus group” (Erickson, 2012). Instead of companies utilizing employees and contractors to address issues, they chose to “outsource [those tasks] to a large group of people, usually on the internet” (Evans, 2014, p. 576). Some companies, such as Doritos claim that crowdsourcing is a great approach because it has the ability to discover and foster creative talent that has been unrecognized. They say it can give individuals the chance to express their talent without requiring professional equipment, degrees, and certifications. Crowdsourcing also has the ability to inexpensively direct “viral media attention” to certain companies (Erickson, 2012). It has also been known to be used to help solve crimes. Since most people have cell phones that enable them to snap and record images, many of them can be useful to help identify suspects. Some officials think that “it is possible curious civilians may identify pieces of information that federal officer’s overlook” (Powers, 2013). Other people believe that “making a problem accessible to a large range of people with a diverse range of skills” can be much more effective for problem solving (Castella, 2010). Surprisingly, crowdsourcing proved to be effective when it was utilized after President John F. Kennedy was assassinated—civilians “unearthed significant clues” (Powers, 2013).
Unfortunately, crowdsourcing is often opposed because many people believe that it is merely a stunt. For instance, when BP needed to address a massive oil spill that took place in the Gulf of Mexico, they aimed to involve ideas from the general public about solving the company’s problems. However, some people felt that “BP’s effort is more about public relations—appearing to be responsive” rather than truly interested in new ideas (Castella, 2010). Also, when crowdsourcing concerns solving crimes, some argue that “internet accusations can be fueled by prejudices based on race and religion” (Powers, 2013). Many think that crowdsourcing can compromise the reputations or wellbeing of innocent people because untrained individuals can make “unfounded accusations against innocent bystanders” (Powers, 2013). Others argue that crowdsourcing is just not an effective method. For instance, after President Obama took office, his administration attempted to question the general public about what they think is most important—“legalizing marijuana came up number one” (Castella, 2010).
Although crowdsourcing is understood by many to be an effective method for such things as promoting creative people, investigating crimes, and public relations, it also reveals some flaws and can mislead the public, causing misunderstandings and false accusations that can be permanently damaging to others.
References
Castella, T. (2010, July 5). Should we trust the wisdom of crowds. BBC News Magazine. Retrieved September, 14, 2014, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8788780.stm
Erickson, C. (2012, April 5). Crowd-Powered: Why Doritos Lets Fans Make Its Super Bowl Ads. Mashable. Retrieved September, 14, 2014, from http://mashable.com/2012/04/05/doritos-crash-super-bowl/
Evans, A., Martin, K., Poatsy, M. (2014). Technology in Action. 10th ed. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Powers, M. (2013, Apr 18). Crime solving by crowdsourcing. Boston Globe. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.snhu.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1328200441?accountid=3783
Modern crowdsourcing can be understood as an online “focus group” (Erickson, 2012). Instead of companies utilizing employees and contractors to address issues, they chose to “outsource [those tasks] to a large group of people, usually on the internet” (Evans, 2014, p. 576). Some companies, such as Doritos claim that crowdsourcing is a great approach because it has the ability to discover and foster creative talent that has been unrecognized. They say it can give individuals the chance to express their talent without requiring professional equipment, degrees, and certifications. Crowdsourcing also has the ability to inexpensively direct “viral media attention” to certain companies (Erickson, 2012). It has also been known to be used to help solve crimes. Since most people have cell phones that enable them to snap and record images, many of them can be useful to help identify suspects. Some officials think that “it is possible curious civilians may identify pieces of information that federal officer’s overlook” (Powers, 2013). Other people believe that “making a problem accessible to a large range of people with a diverse range of skills” can be much more effective for problem solving (Castella, 2010). Surprisingly, crowdsourcing proved to be effective when it was utilized after President John F. Kennedy was assassinated—civilians “unearthed significant clues” (Powers, 2013).
Unfortunately, crowdsourcing is often opposed because many people believe that it is merely a stunt. For instance, when BP needed to address a massive oil spill that took place in the Gulf of Mexico, they aimed to involve ideas from the general public about solving the company’s problems. However, some people felt that “BP’s effort is more about public relations—appearing to be responsive” rather than truly interested in new ideas (Castella, 2010). Also, when crowdsourcing concerns solving crimes, some argue that “internet accusations can be fueled by prejudices based on race and religion” (Powers, 2013). Many think that crowdsourcing can compromise the reputations or wellbeing of innocent people because untrained individuals can make “unfounded accusations against innocent bystanders” (Powers, 2013). Others argue that crowdsourcing is just not an effective method. For instance, after President Obama took office, his administration attempted to question the general public about what they think is most important—“legalizing marijuana came up number one” (Castella, 2010).
Although crowdsourcing is understood by many to be an effective method for such things as promoting creative people, investigating crimes, and public relations, it also reveals some flaws and can mislead the public, causing misunderstandings and false accusations that can be permanently damaging to others.
References
Castella, T. (2010, July 5). Should we trust the wisdom of crowds. BBC News Magazine. Retrieved September, 14, 2014, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8788780.stm
Erickson, C. (2012, April 5). Crowd-Powered: Why Doritos Lets Fans Make Its Super Bowl Ads. Mashable. Retrieved September, 14, 2014, from http://mashable.com/2012/04/05/doritos-crash-super-bowl/
Evans, A., Martin, K., Poatsy, M. (2014). Technology in Action. 10th ed. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Powers, M. (2013, Apr 18). Crime solving by crowdsourcing. Boston Globe. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.snhu.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1328200441?accountid=3783