Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Thursday April 13 2017, @04:08AM   Printer-friendly
from the works-for-me dept.

From Wikipedia to 99designs, and Google to LEGO, crowdsourcing has changed the way the world does business. By partnering with the masses through innovative campaigns, companies can benefit from a vast amount of expertise, enthusiasm and goodwill, rather than from paid labour. But what's in it for the crowd?

Why do ordinary people sign on to help design or produce a product without much compensation? Why do they volunteer their time and skills to a company that profits? And how can a firm better address the crowd's needs in order to to maximize value for all involved in the co-creation project?

Their findings are the first to show that there are four different types of members volunteering in these communities:
1. Communals build skills and community bonds;
2. Utilizers join the communities to sharpen their skills without much intention to form social bonds;
3. Aspirers lack both skills and bonds, but aim to gain more of both;
4. Tourists are minimally invested in both community and skills and infrequently participate.

https://phys.org/news/2017-04-big-businesscrowdsourcing-win-win-situation.html

[Abstract]: Managing Communities of Co-creation around Consumer Engagement Styles

Do you agree and would you be part of such crowd-sourcing initiatives ?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @07:36AM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @07:36AM (#493291)

    Sure, Wikipedia has its issues, but I'd argue it's the single most well-known and successful example of crowdsourcing.

    I agree. Their digital panhandling campaign has been extremely successful at suckering individuals into donating, even as they were sitting on assets worth more than $77 Million in 2015. [washingtonpost.com]

    Unfortunately I could not find any more recent figures, but would not be surprised if it was still in the high 8-figure range.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @07:40AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @07:40AM (#493294)

    The costs to host Wikipedia are not that much and most of the contributors have not been paid. You are complaining about a separate entity called the Wikimedia Foundation that can slap banner ads onto Wikipedia for unnecessary fundraising.

    • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @09:14AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @09:14AM (#493312)

      I agree. Wikipedia is 100% independent of the Wikimedia Foundation. Those ads only benefit WMF, not Wikipedia. Wikipedia makes all the money it needs from door-to-door encyclopedia sales. The WMF budget has gotten totally out of control.