Talk:Crowdsourcing architecture

Untitled
I rather suspect this is complete nonsense, as it stands. 'Throughout history' there may have been some form of architectural competition, but the result was as it is today, that a single designer would win the commission and get to build their own design. The idea of crowdsourcing is to have inputs from a large group all contributing to the end result, an entirely different process. This article has some credibility only because there are a few websites providing an opportunity to pitch for work at the bottom end of the market, where the fees are not actually commercially viable. Those websites may or may not exactly claim to be a form of crowdsourcing but in fact, while they provide a variety of design solutions to chose from, the end result that gets built is still one design by one designer. Designing a building is not in fact something that can be shared between random contributors: on the contrary, the architect's role is a balancing act, taking into account many different and often conflicting objectives and requirements, and resolving them all into an actual building that does what it's supposed to do. Those architectural competition websites are an interesting phenomenon but I'm not convinced this is the right term for what they do. ProfDEH (talk) 17:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced promotional content removed / lead issue
I have removed a large chunk of blatant self-promotion for one platform/company - obviously added by marketing staff with a conflict of interest. Information should be based on independent secondary sources and presented in due weight. The lead section also needs significant work by a topic expert. The lead should start with a basic definition of the topic, and then provide a succinct summary of central aspects from the main text. GermanJoe (talk) 16:01, 27 August 2019 (UTC)