On crowdsourcing and why people contribute content online.

Wetpaint is a website for user-created wikis. You can search the site on a certain subject and if you find an existing wiki on that subject you can join it. Otherwise you can create your own. The CEO of Wetpaint, Ben Elowitz, was interviewed at Assignment Zero where he talked about Wetpaint as well as crowdsourcing in general. One of the more interesting parts of the interview dealt with the concept of “the wisdom of crowds”:

Q: Do you really think there’s wisdom in crowds? If so, what’s the clearest example you know of? What projects in particular are you impressed by?

A: I’m a big fan of “The Wisdom of Crowds.” I think some of the best examples of the Wisdom of Crowds in action were provided by James Surowiecki in his book. Having been a city dweller for much of my life, I was particularly fascinated by his example of how walking down a busy sidewalk was a picture perfect example of how we navigate together to help each other get where we’re going as quickly as possible. Other examples I find fascinating – I think you need look only to the capital markets to find the best example of where collective knowledge quickly and constantly comes together to create markets for stocks and bonds. From a Wetpaint perspective, my favorite crowdsourcing project is the CSI wiki where fans of the show have built the definitive guide to the series. The amount of creativity and detail that has been quickly assembled could not have happened were it not for the collective efforts of the show’s fan base.

I haven’t read Surowiecki’s book yet but I would like to. At another point in the interview, Ben Elowitz talks about why people contribute for free:

Q: Is there money to be made with crowdsourcing? If so, why will some people work for free so that others can profit?

A:No question – there is money to be made with crowdsourcing. Crowdsourcing is a basic human attribute – by nature we like to work together to produce things of value. This type of behavior has happened offline for millenniums and now it’s taking shape online. The business opportunity comes when entrepreneurs make the human process of collaboration quicker, easier and more rewarding than before.

In terms of why people work for free so others can profit, we have to remember that the value equation on crowdsourcing is not only measured in dollars and cents. As long as the participant feels like they are getting compensation commensurate with their input, the incentive to continue participating is rather high.

I think he missed the chance to elaborate on this. I agree that the value equation isn’t only measured in money. The research project I am currently running with my colleagues at Baruch College looks at exactly that question. If there are no external motivating factors (such as money) then there must be internal or intrinsic motivating factors. These can be reputation, efficacy (the ability to make an impact), attachment to the online community, and so on.

We are in the process of analyzing data we collected from users of participatory websites that should give us an idea on exactly what those motivating factors are. Stay tuned.

Wikipedia vs. Citizendium: Let the battle begin!

Citizendium, an alternative open online encyclopedia, has gone live. It was created by Larry Sanger who happens to also be a Wikipedia cofounder. The two encyclopedias share a lot of similarities. They are both free to read and open for anyone to edit. They are also both ad free. However, Citizendium requires contributors to use their real names while Wikipedia doesn’t. And Citizendium will go to experts for verification of its articles, while Wikipedia will not.

 I won’t debate the latter difference. I am always a little suspect of “experts.” Maybe it’s because I work in academia and I see how many times “expertise” is just misguided stubborness.

But the real-name-use rule is interesting. There is a plethora of research on the effects of anonymity in computer mediated groups. The results are not always consistent but some trends have emerged. For example, anonymity in such groups promotes flaming, the act of posting hostile and insulting messages that are often long and rambling. Flaming can be done by group members that would not otherwise engage in it if they weren’t anonymous. Anonymity can also increase group polarization. Both findings would favor Citizendium.

However, anonymity also increases the number of original ideas (though not necessarily the quality of the best idea), partly because it allows everyone to contribute, even if they are disagreeing with the majority of the group. This may favor Wikipedia, especially since it sometimes allows for multiple articles on a topic, if it’s one that is controversial or is subject to interpretation.

By requiring real names, Citizendium promotes accountability and responsibility which is a good thing. But it also may silence many contributors who may have important knowledge but are reluctant to provide it under their real name. Citizendium does allow one to apply for a pseudonym, but only in special cases.

Who will win the encyclopedia battle? I don’t know. Only time will tell. My bet is on Wikipedia. It has the momentum, the experience, and the brand name to attract enough contributions to sustain it. And despite the room for vandalism and malicious content, it allows everyone to add information without fear.

But Citizendium has definitely made this battle more interesting.

Assignment Zero: Journalism through crowdsourcing.

Assignment Zero is a fascinating new experiment in journalism. It uses crowdsourcing (allowing large groups of people to collectively create or build a product though small individual contributions) to report a news story. This is the long tail of information at play.

Up till recently, the information we consumed came from few centralized sources that we considered the experts. They included the news organizations, the newspapers and the magazines. The billions of viewers and readers were simple passive consumers of the information created by the few. Today, we are moving away from the centralized information model and closer to a distributed “long tail” model of information creation. We consume information that may be created by multitudes of non-experts, simply because they happen to be closer to where the information resides. We can all be both consumers and active producers of information.

Assignment Zero is using online collaboration tools such as wikis to allow anyone out there to contribute to a massively produced news story. Besides, who better to provide information on a story than the people who are directly involved in it? This could include the victims of a big storm, the participants in a demonstration, the employees of a company under investigation, or anyone else who is part of the story itself.

There have already been attempts to do that. Yahoo is letting users contribute photos and videos of events online to report what happened. They call it “You Witness News.” A NY Times article on Assignment Zero describes other efforts to produce crowdsourced journalism:

At newspapers like The Asbury Park Press in New Jersey, Florida Today in Brevard County and The News-Press in Fort Meyers, Fla., citizens can dial into databases and public records, or contribute their own experiences to provide grist for reported efforts.

A project at The News-Press on the high cost of sewer and water lines (available in the newspaper’s paid archives at www.news-press.com/apps/pbcs.dll/frontpage) included volunteer engineers going over blueprints in their spare time and an insider who disclosed critical documents.

Is there still a need for journalists and editors? Of course. Journalists can still provide the expert analysis or the focused writing that crowds cannot. And editors are necessary for all types of news stories, whether produced by a journalist or thousands of contributors, in order to keep things smooth, correct, and verified.

But where we get our information is becoming less and less centralized. It’s also (hopefully) becoming less biased and more authentic. 

Web 2.1: Business 2.0’s Next Net 25

Business 2.0 has identified their first Next Net 25: 25 Web 2.0 companies that they think will make it big in the near future (months, not years). I call them Web 2.1. They are cool, smart, useful, and in many cases, profitable (or at least able to become so). Check them out here.

Some of my favorites: Joost, Turn, Vitrue, Fon, SuccessFactors

Wikis: They’re not just for encyclopedias anymore.

Business Week has a great special section on Wikis this week. For the uninitiated, Wikis are basically online collaboration tools that allow multiple users to collaboratively create and edit documents. It’s how Wikipedia works. But Wikis have made huge inroads within companies. The possibilities are endless. For example, a software development company can allow its developers to develop and test code through a wiki. It can also allow its team of remotely based technical writers to write the software documentation. One article in BW’s special section talks about many other examples of large corporations implementing Wikis for internal purposes.

But why stop with employees? Why not let the customers do the work? This is nothing new. Companies like Microsoft have successfully used forums and bulletin boards to allow their customers to help each other with all technical issues. Personally, I have always had better luck getting help from such online forums than any company’s technical support team. So, a Wiki can allow the customers to basically build and edit a knowledge base, one that isn’t organized in the form of questions and answers in long complicated threads, but in the form of self-contained articles. eBay has been trying this with eBay Wiki. The beauty of Wikis is that all the information created is never static. It’s constantly alive and changing to (hopefully) reflect the changes in the world it describes. To borrow a metaphor from biology, the information becomes the organism and the users who create and edit it become its adaptive cells.

Of course there are those who say it’s not going to work. That there’s too much room for vandalism and unscrupuplous misuse. But the same can be said for email or even the telephone. As a technology becomes well integrated with the social norms, regulations, and culture of an organization, it becomes less and less misused. Maybe it’s the fact that employees realize that everyone is collectively better off if the technology is used appropriately. Maybe it’s because organizations develop clearer guidelines and sanctions for misuse. Whatever the reason(s), the result is the same. So, let Wikis grow and use them as much as possible. Soon, there will come a time we won’t remember how we worked without them.