I do have to admit I had to google the term Crowdsourcing and then pay a visit to wikipedia.com in order to get a clue about the topic.As far as I have now understood, the term refers to harnessing the human energy of wide audiences to business efforts of various companies. George Raine calls crowdsourcing as a The Wisdom of the Crowds, a retail democracy with a focus on the group on a large scale. In retail democracy people, the audience, pay thereby willingly and without a reward their contribution to develop content to an article, the designs for clothing company or a data to a wesite. The most well-known example might be wikipedia, the source of my knowledge here.
Douglas Rushkoff discusses the both sides of the issue. On one hand,companies might consider open-source as a tread to their intellectula property rights and copy rights. Open source sofwares such as Linux are considereble choice for the classic Windows or macIntosh users and thus representing unwanted comptetiton for the same clientle and, moreover for free. On the other hand, from a positive point of view, companies might consider the audience as a new affinity group population to be exploited as a resource.
The whole meaning seems to lay on the engaging audience to the interaction and serving they as they want by getting the feedback directly. However, if the audience influences the content, in some cases even designs and develops the content, how can the company claim it to belong to the company? How democratic is that people who have have actually helped to produce the product and technically own the intellectual property of a design, idea or a text content, have to pay for the product in order to get it. Moreover, where are the royalties to the people for the every sold product?
I guess, at this point, I'm standing on the no mans land with Rushkoff. At least, for now.
Douglas Rushkoff discusses the both sides of the issue. On one hand,companies might consider open-source as a tread to their intellectula property rights and copy rights. Open source sofwares such as Linux are considereble choice for the classic Windows or macIntosh users and thus representing unwanted comptetiton for the same clientle and, moreover for free. On the other hand, from a positive point of view, companies might consider the audience as a new affinity group population to be exploited as a resource.
The whole meaning seems to lay on the engaging audience to the interaction and serving they as they want by getting the feedback directly. However, if the audience influences the content, in some cases even designs and develops the content, how can the company claim it to belong to the company? How democratic is that people who have have actually helped to produce the product and technically own the intellectual property of a design, idea or a text content, have to pay for the product in order to get it. Moreover, where are the royalties to the people for the every sold product?
I guess, at this point, I'm standing on the no mans land with Rushkoff. At least, for now.
Ei kommentteja:
Lähetä kommentti