Not outsource, not open source, but CROWDSOURCE

 One thing I appreciated about this week's crowdsourcing reading by Zhao and Zhu was that it anticipated the exact questions I found myself asking while reading it.

My first reaction was simple: Isn't this just outsourcing? Then, a few pages later, another question followed: Isn't this basically open source?

The article addressed both comparisons directly, which made the concept much easier to understand. At a surface level, outsourcing and crowdsourcing do share some similarities. Both involve seeking solutions from outside an organization, and both can rely on incentives to motivate participation. In some crowdsourcing contexts, participants even compete to provide the best solution, much like vendors competing for a contract.

What stood out to me, however, was one key distinction: outsourcing typically involves a pre-selected provider, whereas crowdsourcing begins with an open call to an undefined crowd. Rather than inviting a specific company to solve a problem, organizations open participation to anyone who is interested.

For some reason, that difference felt more significant than I initially expected. It made crowdsourcing seem more democratic. The opportunity to contribute is not restricted to organizations that already have established relationships, resources, or reputations. In theory, anyone with a good idea can participate.

Thinking about this distinction reminded me of a common practice in South Korea: public idea contests, or gongmojeon (공모전). Government agencies and large corporations frequently organize these competitions when they are looking for fresh perspectives or breakthrough ideas. In many cases, these organizations have become so large and established that they may struggle to generate radically new ideas from within. Rather than relying exclusively on their usual contractors or consulting firms, they open the challenge to the public.

As a result, university students, hobby groups, school clubs, and small organizations—people who would never have been considered traditional vendors—can contribute solutions. Sometimes the winning idea comes not from industry experts but from individuals who approach the problem from an entirely different perspective.

One contemporary example that came to mind is the International Quant Championship (IQC), a global quantitative investing competition that attracted more than 80,000 participants from 142 countries. What I found fascinating was that the eventual winner was not a major investment firm or an established industry expert, but a student from UNIST in South Korea. Competing against participants from leading universities and global financial institutions, he reportedly outperformed much larger and better-resourced competitors with a relatively small set of original algorithms built around news-based sentiment analysis.

Whether every crowdsourcing initiative produces such dramatic outcomes is beside the point. What makes this example compelling is that it illustrates the underlying logic of crowdsourcing. When participation is opened to a broader community, expertise can emerge from unexpected places. The best solution is not always generated by the organization with the largest budget, the biggest team, or the strongest reputation.

Perhaps that is what I find most interesting about crowdsourcing. It challenges traditional assumptions about where expertise resides. Instead of beginning with the question, “Who is qualified to solve this problem?” crowdsourcing begins with a different question: “What might happen if we invite everyone to try?”


References

Zhao, Y., & Zhu, Q. (2014). Evaluation on crowdsourcing research: Current status and future direction. Information Systems Frontiers, 16(3), 417–434. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-012-9350-4

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

How My Social Media Detox Became a “Demitox”

 I used to be a heavy Instagram user. I liked checking what my friends were doing, replying to DMs, and casually scrolling whenever I had a few minutes. Over time, though, I started to feel that my attention span was getting shorter. As a PhD student, I often need long stretches of focused time, so Instagram began to feel less like a fun social space and more like a constant interruption. Because of that, I have developed a repeated pattern of social media detox. At the beginning of a semester, I usually delete Instagram to reduce distraction. After a month or so, I sometimes reinstall it for one or two weeks. Then, when I need to write a major paper or focus on a big deadline, I delete it again. During the recent break, I used Instagram a lot while attending a conference in Bergen, Norway, and traveling with my family in Vienna. But as soon as I returned to Tallahassee, I deleted it again. However, I realized that my detox is not really a complete detox. Maybe it is more of a “d...
Read more

What do you mean? "Produser"?

 Before reading Bruns, I had been thinking about the words we usually use to describe people on social media: “creator” and “consumer.” These words make sense, but they also felt a little incomplete to me. In reality, many of us are both. We scroll, watch, and read, but we also like, comment, share, repost, save, curate, and sometimes create our own content. I wondered why we often talk as if there are only two separate roles. Bruns’s concept of the “produser” helped resolve that tension for me because it combines these roles into one term. A produser is both a user and a producer. In Web 2.0 spaces, people do not only receive information; they also respond to it, modify it, remix it, comment on it, share it, and sometimes improve it. Even small actions, such as leaving a comment or sharing a resource, can become part of a larger process of knowledge-building. This idea is useful for thinking about learning. In traditional educational settings, students are often positioned as rece...
Read more

oh, I KNOW YOU...from google scholar!: Why I finally need to take my online presence seriously.

I can totally relate to what Lowenthal et al. (2016) argued in their article: if you meet someone online whom you've known for some time and then run into them at a conference, you don't start from zero. When I was going through my PhD application interview on Zoom, I remember silently screaming in my head, "Oh my god, it's her!" — sitting face-to-face (virtually) with researchers whose work I had been reading. As I started my PhD program and began attending conferences, I finally got to meet these "superstars" of my field in person. I had read their articles, cited them in my own work, and watched their lectures on YouTube. Even without ever having met them in person, I already shared a kind of history with these renowned scholars. The moment I walked into their sessions, there was an unspoken familiarity — at least on my end. One such moment happened at AERA in Los Angeles, where I ran into Dr. Victor Lee at a concurrent session. I had actually tried ...
Read more