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This discussion has been archived.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, @11:58AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @11:58AM (#493332)

    If you have knowledge in some specific domain, or were part of some event/endeavor, you could always fix that little error in Wikipedia. It doesn't take long. Most topics are not subject to controversy... https://xkcd.com/386/ [xkcd.com]

  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @03:26PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 13 2017, @03:26PM (#493441)

    I assume that the XKCD link means you're joking.

    This is good, because I can tell you from personal experience that contributing actual, personally verified knowledge based on domain expertise, is not welcomed by wikipedia.

    Waste of time trying to help that lot.