Monday, March 30, 2009

Is Wikipedia Crowdsourcing?

In my previous post about crowdsourcing I interpreted the definition of the term narrowly, to refer specifically to when a company outsources a task to the crowd. So Wikipedia wouldn't be crowdsourcing because the tasks done by Wikipedians aren't being organized or directed by a formal organization.

I used to use the term much more broadly to refer to various types of online collaborative processes, including projects like Wikipedia. I also noticed that my classmate Nisha referred to Wikipedia as an example of crowdsourcing on her blog.

My guess is that most people use the term in the latter fashion, to describe all sorts of online collaborative projects, regardless of whether or not they are directed by a formal organization.

But I now think I prefer the first, more narrow definition. I like that it refers to a specific type of collaboration and that it excludes Wikipedia, which I think could be better described using another term. (My vote is for 'commons-based peer production' though I know it's a mouthful.)

Obviously there isn't a right or wrong definition. But which is more useful? Is it worth restricting the use of crowdsourcing for the sake of clarity? Does it even matter?

*UPDATE* I should have mentioned from the outset... the issue of how the project is licensed seems relevant to this discussion. Think Creative Commons and the GNU General Public License versus proprietary projects/content controlled by companies or other organizations.

1 comment:

  1. "So Wikipedia wouldn't be crowdsourcing because the tasks done by Wikipedians aren't being organized or directed by a formal organization."

    Do you know the origin of Wikipedia? I think this could shed some light on whether to include it and its type or not.

    ReplyDelete