The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Crowdsourcing
Abstract
A concise introduction to crowdsourcing that goes beyond social media buzzwords to explain what crowdsourcing really is and how it works.Ever since the term “crowdsourcing” was coined in 2006 by Wired writer Jeff Howe, group activities ranging from the creation of the Oxford English Dictionary to the choosing of new colors for M&Ms have been labeled with this most buzz-generating of media buzzwords. In this accessible but authoritative account, grounded in the empirical literature, Daren Brabham explains what crowdsourcing is, what it is not, and how it works.Crowdsourcing, Brabham tells us, is an online, distributed problem solving and production model that leverages the collective intelligence of online communities for specific purposes set forth by a crowdsourcing organization—corporate, government, or volunteer. Uniquely, it combines a bottom-up, open, creative process with top-down organizational goals. Crowdsourcing is not open source production, which lacks the top-down component; it is not a market research survey that offers participants a short list of choices; and it is qualitatively different from predigital open innovation and collaborative production processes, which lacked the speed, reach, rich capability, and lowered barriers to entry enabled by the Internet.Brabham describes the intellectual roots of the idea of crowdsourcing in such concepts as collective intelligence, the wisdom of crowds, and distributed computing. He surveys the major issues in crowdsourcing, including crowd motivation, the misconception of the amateur participant, crowdfunding, and the danger of “crowdsploitation” of volunteer labor, citing real-world examples from Threadless, InnoCentive, and other organizations. And he considers the future of crowdsourcing in both theory and practice, describing its possible roles in journalism, governance, national security, and science and health.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Algorithms at Work: The New Contested Terrain of Control
Kellogg, K. C., Valentine, M. A., & Christin, A. (2020) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/annals.2018.0174 · Cited by 2,732
Chua, R. Y. J., Roth, Y., & Lemoine, J.-F. (2015) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.1177/0001839214563595 · Cited by 433
The FATE Landscape of Sign Language AI Datasets: An Interdisciplinary Perspective
Bragg, D., Caselli, N., Hochgesang, J. A., Huenerfauth, M., Katz-Hernandez, L., Koller, O., Kushalnagar, R., Vogler, C., & Ladner, R. E. (2021) · ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing · doi:10.1145/3436996 · Cited by 55
Of algorithms, apps and advice: Digital social policy and service delivery
Henman, P. (2019) · Journal of Asian Public Policy · doi:10.1080/17516234.2018.1495885 · Cited by 53
The Labor of Maintaining and Scaling Free and Open-Source Software Projects
Geiger, R. S., Howard, D., & Irani, L. (2021) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3449249 · Cited by 49
Social connectedness, mindfulness, and coping as protective factors during the COVID‐19 pandemic
Dailey, S. F., Parker, M. M., & Campbell, A. (2023) · Journal of Counseling & Development · doi:10.1002/jcad.12450 · Cited by 41
The multiple, interacting levels of cognitive systems (MILCS) perspective on group cognition
Goldstone, R. L., & Theiner, G. (2017) · Philosophical Psychology · doi:10.1080/09515089.2017.1295635 · Cited by 31
A TpM‐based collaborative system to teach IoT
Ferreira, L. C. B. C., Yamaguti, R., Branquinho, O. C., & Cardieri, P. (2021) · Computer Applications in Engineering Education · doi:10.1002/cae.22457 · Cited by 9
Metadata
- Authors
- Brabham, D. C.
- Venue
- The MIT Press eBooks
- Publisher
- The MIT Press
- Published
- 2013
- OpenAlex
- W4243916257
- Cited by
- 601
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 51.02
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.