Article lacks balance

"Read this glimpse into a cool future."

Much of the Web 2.0 hype these days seems to carry an almost religious fervour, an uncritical acceptance of the medium and latest trend being espoused, in this case crowdsourcing. I'm really troubled by the general lack of scrutiny in discussions of social media and the Internet. And frankly, I expect better, more rigorous journalism from the Tyee. This above article tells me nothing about the possible negatives, controversy or debate surrounding the concept of crowdsourcing.

A little bit of my own probing into the matter tells me there is criticism and controversy.

Some media critics, such as Douglas Rushkoff, are not so sure about the concept. Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales is also a vocal critic of the term.

The first obvious thing that came to my mind upon reading this article is the ethical question associated with any kind of out-sourcing. Intellectual property rights, companies abusing this sort of idea to avoid paying trained professionals in favour of paying untrained people who will work for free. Crowdsourcing seems like just another euphemism for the use of cheap labour. Can you say surplus value?

In some contexts, its a great idea, in others it is not. This article sheds zero light on the possible pitfalls. But more importantly, this article is further evidence that we seem to have almost no media criticism/analysis of any depth heading into the technological future.

ooopss!

Amend passage to read:

to avoid paying trained professionals in favour of sourcing out to untrained people who will work for free or very little.

crowdsourcing...

another word for democracy,perhaps? When people - whether young or not - begin to believe they have real input and influence in/on the way things are made and done, they will become engaged. And that , of course, is precisely what the tools of the internet age allow for.

"Twitter is only a platform and crowdsourcing a process. Movements are built by real people, i.e. 'influencers' with the aid of these tools."

I am disheartened by the continual misunderstanding of 'tools', whatever they may be. There is, after all, an uncritical acceptance of the telephone, in spite of the fact that it is used by telephone marketers and annoyers of all types. (The young are way ahead, though - they no longer have landlines, and as their telephone numbers are not in that catch-all disdainer of privacy, the phone book...they don't get telemarketers.) Personally, I don't think crowdsourcing is the latest trend - I think it is the restoration of democracy.

Steve, I look forward to your articles and thanks for this one.

Tools

No misunderstanding of tools in this corner. Quite the contrary. Surely, you'd agree that when put in the wrong hands, tools can hurt, exploit and kill, just as they can democratize. The notion of online out-sourcing is not telemarketing, so the telephone analogy is a false bit of logic.

Suggesting that crowdsourcing is synonymous with democracy really is a generous, perhaps specious claim. In some contexts, it could represent democratic expression. In other contexts, it could represent outright exploitation of labour by a group of people who don't understand their true relationship to the owner of the thing being crowdsourced. That's what I want to see in articles covering this topic - the cons that almost always come with the pros.

I'm not doubting some of the benefits being espoused. I'm simply seeking a critical scrutiny of these media trends rather than blind acceptance. The Tyee offers cutting edge investigative journalism in the political realm, but it seems the same standard does not apply in the realm of media analysis. There are some really interesting pockets of debate happening around issues related to Internet technology, but you'd never know it reading the Tyee. All I read in articles like the above are homages to the latest trends and gadgetry.

Part of the issue, for which I don't blame Beers et al for a split second, may be the Tyee's medium: online news service. For such a service, raising hard questions arising from Internet technology and trends is tantamount to biting the hand that feeds.

one point

VivianLea Doubt ~ they no longer have landlines, and as their telephone numbers are not in that catch-all disdainer of privacy, the phone book...they don't get telemarketers.)

I know in Asia cell phones are inundated with EMS messages from marketers. The cell phones are always buzzing with incoming 'calls'. In Thailand, for example, the Prime Minister will send messages of what he deems import to all cell phones in the land. How is that for evidence of the insidious effects of the cell-phone tool?

limited

I get the idea of crowdsourcing and can see it being a tool to garner information, news etc from a larger pool of observers.

I do not see it as a major democratic tool as it is in the hands of a limited number of people who have access to the other tools that makes crowdsourcing possible.

I would also like to know how it becomes a technological tool for the economically disadvantaged.

At this point it is a limited democratic tool that is subject to the same hype, disinformation and misinformation that our current tools unfortunately provide.