One problem with crowdsourcing innovation is that every form of poll - and crowdsourcing just means voting with your dollar - tends to be conservative. i have personally seen hundreds of times where this effect was visible in product development where focus groups were involved.
Now if people vote with their dollars they tend to be even more conservative, because it's their money at stake now...
I think crowdfunding would be great for managing a money fund. People get to choose how their 401k's money gets managed.
That would make it very transparent and trustworthy.
Discussion on:
Top
Rated
Rated
Duh, that's what we were already doing.
Posted by dduggerbiocepts
9th Aug
Just
In
In
Crowdsourcing vs Democracy
Edited by Willy the JOAT
Updated - 10th Aug
Show:
0
Votes
Polls vs Innovation
Posted by raphbaph
Updated - 9th Aug
+1
Vote
Duh, that's what we were already doing.
Crowd sourcing as a decision making tool - at least informed decision making, has never made any logical sense. Before the generally uninformed/non-critical thinking public and the scientifically illiterate media stupidly and enthusiastically embraced "crowd sourcing" for decision making - we were already using - "Super Influencers (people with demonstrated expertise), 'Big Data' (statistics) and "Machine Augmented Intelligence" (computers). Leave it to the media to rediscover the obvious, invent different terms to state it in, and then claim it as their own.
Posted by dduggerbiocepts
9th Aug
0
Votes
crowdsourcing
Crowdsourcing new? Maybe the term but needs assessment has been around for a long time and when it becomes obsolete we are all in trouble. Is there a think tank someplace that comes up with these buzz words and catch phrases? It wasn't the " wisdom" of the crowd that caused the stock market crash or the the dot com bomb or the latest real estate crisis it was greed. Living beyond your means, Stocks bought on margin, sub prime lending - we don't seem to learn. Maybe instead of buy in buzz words and catch phrases we should take a look at our history and see if there's a way to avoid repeating it.
Posted by renniemarshall
9th Aug
0
Votes
Make your own decisions ....
Many years ago, my Dad suggested that instead of following the crowd, that I should do my own research and then draw my own conclusions.
Doesn't win me any popularity contests (and I don't really care), but that advice has served me well.
So well, in fact, that I've suggested the same concept to my children who, in turn, have also benefited.
Crowds, it seems, are great for those who just can't be bothered to think.
Just saying ....
Doesn't win me any popularity contests (and I don't really care), but that advice has served me well.
So well, in fact, that I've suggested the same concept to my children who, in turn, have also benefited.
Crowds, it seems, are great for those who just can't be bothered to think.
Just saying ....
Posted by da philster
9th Aug
0
Votes
The DEMOCRACY ?
The DEMOCRACY is not a matter of crowdsourcing? What interesting conclusion emerge?
Posted by Xpareto
9th Aug
0
Votes
Democracy do not work every time
No problem with listening to the crowd, but making a decision solely by votes can always lead to total failure. You can see it from time to time in various game shows( ask the audience trump card). Some higher intelligence is needed to work out who to omit or join the crowd. I think dictator's decision of A company's ex-ceo made A become the biggest company in the world.
Posted by aktabo
9th Aug
0
Votes
Be Clear on What Needs Crowd Sourcing
The question is- what benefits from crowd sourcing? What wouldn't?
The examples pointed out where crowd sourcing doesn't work basically stems from the fact that the example is a technical one. Technical in a sense that the plane requires a specific set of expertise to built and construct for safety. Technical issues such as this should not be "mass crowd-sourced" as this would bring in ideas from "pseudo experts" who might cause more problems that find more solutions.
The only crowd sourcing that could be done with a technical issue would be "selected expert crowd sourcing"- perhaps done through social networks such as LinkedIn where you know you are talking to a group of people with the expertise.
For "mass crowd sourcing", it could be used in campaigns for the environment etc. This is where the collective wisdow would generate innovation and ideas ground-up.
The examples pointed out where crowd sourcing doesn't work basically stems from the fact that the example is a technical one. Technical in a sense that the plane requires a specific set of expertise to built and construct for safety. Technical issues such as this should not be "mass crowd-sourced" as this would bring in ideas from "pseudo experts" who might cause more problems that find more solutions.
The only crowd sourcing that could be done with a technical issue would be "selected expert crowd sourcing"- perhaps done through social networks such as LinkedIn where you know you are talking to a group of people with the expertise.
For "mass crowd sourcing", it could be used in campaigns for the environment etc. This is where the collective wisdow would generate innovation and ideas ground-up.
Posted by Andersonsg
9th Aug
0
Votes
Crowdsourcing vs Democracy
Crowdsourcing as a pure democratic process is as doomed to fail as elected government.
It'a good way to generate ideas, solutions to specific small problems, and statistics.
Then some non-democratic process has to sort out the wheat from the chaff and turn it into something useful. That's called decision making.
The idea that the wisdom of the crowd can be greater than the wisdom of the individual is demonstrably false in many cases. Almost every newspaper carries an astrology column, a multi-billion dollar cosmetics industry caters to wishful thinking, and companies, special interest groups, and politicians spend inordinate amounts of money on "communication" - reshaping, and in many cases rewriting what used to be called common sense. To get a learned opinion about some complex current issue, the crowd turns to the wisdom of movie stars, "newsworthy" delinquent children of the rich and famous, &c. Experts are so, so, so boring!
The public education system caters to the least capable, thereby reducing us all to the lowest common denominator.
The saving grace of open crowdsourcing is that it relies on the intrinsic interest of the contributor, and the rewards are not attractive enough to the mass to generate huge floods of garbage solutions.
Crowdfunding is more like pushing penny stocks, somewhere between mass marketing and massive fraud.
It'a good way to generate ideas, solutions to specific small problems, and statistics.
Then some non-democratic process has to sort out the wheat from the chaff and turn it into something useful. That's called decision making.
The idea that the wisdom of the crowd can be greater than the wisdom of the individual is demonstrably false in many cases. Almost every newspaper carries an astrology column, a multi-billion dollar cosmetics industry caters to wishful thinking, and companies, special interest groups, and politicians spend inordinate amounts of money on "communication" - reshaping, and in many cases rewriting what used to be called common sense. To get a learned opinion about some complex current issue, the crowd turns to the wisdom of movie stars, "newsworthy" delinquent children of the rich and famous, &c. Experts are so, so, so boring!
The public education system caters to the least capable, thereby reducing us all to the lowest common denominator.
The saving grace of open crowdsourcing is that it relies on the intrinsic interest of the contributor, and the rewards are not attractive enough to the mass to generate huge floods of garbage solutions.
Crowdfunding is more like pushing penny stocks, somewhere between mass marketing and massive fraud.
Posted by Willy the JOAT
Updated - 10th Aug