Talk:Crowdsourcing creative work

Spec Work vs. Crowdsourcing
I think speculative work should not synonymous to crowdsourcing as it seems in this article. Spec work refers to doing work without being paid while crowdsourcing is obtaining needed services, ideas, or content by soliciting contributions from a large group of people, and especially from an online community, rather than from traditional employees or suppliers. Airelor (talk) 05:38, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

General notibility guideline
I am a graduate student in a Social Computing class. We are exploring various topics on Wikipedia, and considering how particular articles might benefit from revisions. This article was selected in part because it seems to need some attention. It is designated as an "article with multiple issues." Among other problems, the article fails to fulfill the basic criteria of the Wikipedia General notability guideline. The article, as it currently stands, does not provide significant coverage of Crowdsourcing creative work. Indeed, it seems to require readers to refer to citations for full comprehension of the topic at hand. The introductory section would benefit from further elaboration; CCW is never defined clearly, and even the initial sentence is somewhat obtuse. The "History" section is similarly brief and doesn't seem to fully address the topic of CCW. Rather, it devotes more time to explaining the conception of the term "Crowdsourcing." Although this is certainly part of CCW, the origins of CCW are less clear. Yes, the term originated at a workshop, but is there any other meaningful information about this, and why should we trust that this workshop is a reliable source about the topic?

In order to address these two sections of the article, it would be helpful to:
 * find reliable secondary sources about this topic
 * formulate a better introduction to the topic of Crowdsourcing creative work
 * properly cite sources using in-line citations
 * investigate why the current sources are cited (for example, notes 1-4)
 * apply a similar revision process to the "History" section of the article, and test the reliability of new sources, using Wikipedia's Testing Reliable Source Guidelines

Theplantus (talk) 20:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Illustration
I am a graduate student in a Social Computing class. As the header of the article, it says that this article may be too technical for most readers to understand, that is because the article fails to fulfill the basic Criteria of good article, there are some in-line citation, but part of them are dead links which are not Verifiable. In other hand, especially in "Aspects of creative crowdsourcing" section, It gives multiple concept without a suitable order which will confuse readers. And in domain part, it just list some fields without any illustration about what the roles of crowdsourcing creative work in these fields.

In order to fix the main problem of the article, there are some advices: JIE124 (talk) 18:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * delete the Inappropriate in-line citation, or find some other reliable sources
 * redevelop the "Aspects of creative crowdsourcing" section which can be more clearly to reader.
 * add some illustration, if possible, with images.

Both of the students above have pointed out some ways to improve the article, and I think among them 1. Revise the article to be more approachable for most readers and 2. Finding reliable secondary sources are of highest priority. Should we distribute the work, so that each team member can work on some part of the improvement? Silent.x.noise (talk) 04:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Above all, I think this article have three main point to revise: 1. Finding reliable secondary sources and fix the Inappropriate in-line citation 2. Rewrite some part of article which are not specific or too professional to read. 3. Add some illustration to make article easier to comprehend So, we can distribute the work based on problems or based on sections in article. JIE124 (talk) 18:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the assessment that we should address the three points mentioned above. I would also add that we should focus on revising the introduction and history, in particular, as they are the gateway to the rest of the article. So, perhaps the revised list would be: 1. Find reliable secondary sources and fix the in-line citations 2. Rewrite the introduction and history sections of the article to improve legibility and comprehension, and to clarify the topic. 3. Add an illustration and/or figure that adds an additional layer of meaning to the article or at least clarifies the topic. How should we distribute this work? Theplantus (talk) 01:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe each person takes responsibility for one part? Of course, we could assist each other, but just everyone has a main mission. If no one has any preference, I could do (2). Silent.x.noise (talk) 02:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I tend to do the third one, especially in "Aspects of creative crowdsourcing" section, I think it will be better if we add some illustration.JIE124 (talk) 03:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I am happy to focus on the first component and contributing to the rewriting of the introduction and history. Theplantus (talk) 23:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

108.32.89.56 (talk) 23:08, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Creative crowdsourcing
Searching for information about crowdsourcing creative work, it seems that the term "creative crowdsourcing" is also used very frequently. Maybe it would be helpful to create a redirect for "Creative crowdsourcing" to this article. Silent.x.noise (talk) 22:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Decision of changes
Three major changes We are going to make : JIE124 (talk) 17:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Find reliable secondary sources and fix the in-line citations
 * Rewrite the introduction and history sections of the article to improve legibility and comprehension, and to clarify the topic.
 * Add an illustration and/or figure that adds an additional layer of meaning to the article or at least clarifies the topic.

Thanks for posting these, JIE124! Theplantus (talk) 23:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Lead section
The definition of CCW isn't very clear, it's just saying what crowdsourcing is and what CCW crowdsources. It doesn't explain CCW in general.

I will start with editing that part soon.

Silent.x.noise (talk) 15:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Purpose
A sub-section for "Crowdsourcing Creative Work" already exists on the "Crowdsourcing" Wikipedia page. Why is it useful for this external page to exist? I am increasingly unsure if it is even necessary for this separate page to exist, given that the "Crowdsourcing Creative Work" moniker does not appear to have gained widespread traction. Theplantus (talk) 21:05, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

That's a good question, I was thinking about that too... Silent.x.noise (talk) 02:29, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

But I don't think we should delete this page. Maybe we need to try and emphasize on the difference between creative crowdsourcing and general crowdsourcing. Silent.x.noise (talk) 18:35, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think it's up to us to decide that this page should be deleted, although I think we can put that thought out there. I agree that it would be useful to make the distinction between general and creative crowdsourcing the main focus of our edits. Theplantus (talk) 21:50, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I can't find a better in-line citation for Crowdsourcing creative work or CCW. It seems like the only place where that specific term was used was at the CHI Conference in 2011 and the proceedings are difficult to find. I found a different presentation, from CHI 2013, that uses that sequence of words but doesn't use the CCW acronym. Perhaps I will skip the first sentence of the introduction for now and move onto looking at what else we can do to clarify the content of that section.

Theplantus (talk) 17:20, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I had the same problem. The term supposedly comes from the CHI conference, but there is no backup for that except the statement here. I think we can skip that. Silent.x.noise (talk) 00:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Lead Section
Going back to what Silent.x.noise started previously, this might be a good area to start re-thinking the introduction. Here's what's there, with some edits:

Crowdsourcing creative work (CCW) is an open call to the crowd for novel and useful solutions. Crowdsourcing may be appropriate when experts are in scarce supply, multiple diverse ideas and/or contextual insights are needed. Creative crowdsourcing, or crowd creativity (citation: Crowd Creativity), taps into online communities to source creative projects spanning graphic design, advertising, crowdsourcing architecture, apparel design, movies,[1] writing, illustration, etc.[2][3][4] Theplantus (talk) 17:55, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Now the page can also be reached through redirection from "Creative crowdsourcing", we should put that term in the lead section too. Like:

Crowdsourcing creative work (CCW, also known as creative crowdsourcing)......etc.

Silent.x.noise (talk) 00:53, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I was mistaken, only the link for "Creative crowdsourcing" under the "Crowdsourcing creative work" section of the article "Crowdsourcing" leads here. "Creative crowdsourcing" does not have a page on its own. I will create a page and redirect it here. Silent.x.noise (talk) 00:58, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Now I've created the redirect from the page "Creative crowdsourcing". Silent.x.noise (talk) 01:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Silent.x.noise! I've added in my edits to the start of the article. One major problem is that the CHI citations (number 8 and 9), do not work. Without these citations, the history section is pretty unsubstantiated. Should I go ahead and delete those citations (because they don't work), even though they are the substance of CCW??! Theplantus (talk) 17:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Aspects of Creative Crowdsourcing
The Graphic Design and Illustration "DesignContest" links no longer work so I'm going to go ahead and delete it. Theplantus (talk) 20:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I find an article related to crowdsourcing creative work seems useful. There are some advantages about crowdsourcing creative work, maybe we can add them into the page as a section, http://www.crowdsourcing.org/editorial/5-myths-about-crowdsourcing-creative-work/34700, I try to figure out some key information from the article and put them into the page.JIE124 (talk) 21:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry! Me again. I also fixed the link for "Art: pptArt" because it was broken and cleaned up that section a bit. I also deleted the reference to the CHI Workshop on Crowdsourcing and Human Computation because it no longer worked.

Theplantus (talk) 21:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I also added this to the introduction:

Creative crowdsourcing exists because of the unique properties of the web: it allows users to collaborate remotely and asynchronously in a single web environment.[6] Theplantus (talk) 21:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I find that article is focus on the advantages of creative crowdsourcing platform, I'm not sure whether it can be added into this page. In my opinion, I think that platform is one of the formats about work, so, it also represent the advantage of the crowdsourcing creative work. Maybe we can add this part as a new section to figure out the advantages of crowdsourcing creative work or we can just take the key part into the "Aspects of Creative Crowdsourcing". Then improve the section.JIE124 (talk) 21:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi JIE124. Do you mean that the article I reference isn't relevant or the one you brought up earlier? Sorry, I was just a little confused by your comment. Thanks! Theplantus (talk) 22:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Theplantus, I'm not mean to your article, what I said is the article I find from a website http://www.crowdsourcing.org/editorial/5-myths-about-crowdsourcing-creative-work/34700, I'm sorry that confuse you, I just want you to read about the article from the site I give, I'm not sure whether this article can help us to improve the page. It's a new idea, not to defense the article you referenced. I will create a new talk page section to discuss it. Sorry again,!JIE124 (talk) 02:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Criticism and Advantage
Hi, Sorry to Theplantus that my comment confused you. I find an article taking about the crowdsourcing creative platform from a website( http://www.crowdsourcing.org/editorial/5-myths-about-crowdsourcing-creative-work/34700), I think it will be useful to improve the article by giving the advantages of crowdsourcing creative work. If you two think it work. I have two ideas. First, maybe we can improve the "Criticism" Section by giving some criticism and using the article I found to rebut them. Second, maybe we can just use some key information about the advantages of creative crowdsourcing work to improve "Aspect of Creative Crowdsourcing" Section JIE124 (talk) 02:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually it's better to be neutral, so besides giving the advantages, we should also cover the problems. Because I think the discussion on the controversies of creative crowdsourcing is a key to this subject, given that the debate seems to be one of the reasons creative crowdsourcing is considered an "issue" (just look at the amount of articles talking about this), so I think it's more appropriate to introduce both sides of the debate. Silent.x.noise (talk) 04:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

So what I mean is the first idea might not be the best thing to do, it would seem like this article is supporting creative crowdsourcing. Second idea is good. However it is not clear whether the advantages given in the article you mentioned actually has any research to support that, because I actually read a few article that rebuts some of the "advantages" mentioned in that article. I would think you could only write "Supporters claim......, others point out......". Just neutral like that. Silent.x.noise (talk) 04:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Silent.x.noise, Thank you for your reply, I agree with your idea, the first one seems not good. I will try to figure out the second idea, and I will get the information that just described the topic neutrally(Surely, I will put the information I summarize from the article in the talk page later), if you two think it will be ok. Then, we can revise the article(Crowdsourcing creative work). If you two have any other questions or ideas, don't hesitate to tell. Thank you again! JIE124 (talk) 05:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

No worries JIE124! I wasn't offended! Yes, I think it makes sense to be neutral, as that is a key tenet of Wikipedia. If agree that we should not write about the "advantages" of creative crowdsourcing, but rather write about it in the way that Silent.x.noise recommended. Do either of you want to spearhead this section and I will help copy-edit it here? I have ample experience with editing. Theplantus (talk) 05:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I have summarized some information from that article which should be neutral: For the first one, I think it state a condition that crowdsourcing creative work became one of the mean to realize the Commercial purpose. For the second one, it says that financial compensation maybe not motivate crowds to do creative work, by adding it into "motivation" part seems to make the article more neutral. For the third one, it state a reason why the crowdsourcing creative work can be a good way, maybe we can add this in "creative work" part to illustrate why it can be a creative work. If there are some statement error or grammars error, please not hesitate to tell. (Actually, I'm not good at editing, thank you if you can help me with that, Theplantus. ) JIE124 (talk) 05:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * crowdsourcing creative work is a valuable tool to further business objectives. but it is an alternative path to receiving creative work, not the only means.
 * The financial compensation can motivate crowds to do creative work, but just the winner can get awards. to some extent, it will decrease motivation.
 * crowdsourcing creative work create a sense of competition which will enhance the creatives to learn from the feedback. As a result, crowdsourcing creative work will get better by improve the creatives ability of innovation.

Hi JIE124. Thanks for writing up a few points about the article. I feel like we could add your first point to the Introduction of the article. Like, after the second sentence of the introduction, we could add:

Although creative crowdsourcing represents one possible method for soliciting innovative work, it is not the only means.

I'll go ahead and add that to the introduction now, and then look at the other points you made (sorry, I tend to like making one edit at a time!). Theplantus (talk) 17:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Okidoke, I made that edit and actually added a domain for crowdsourcing advertising work (Boom Ideanet) that I just found. Okay, back to the points you made, JIE124. I think that the other two points you mentioned might have already been covered in the Motivation and Barriers section of the article?

I think our goal by Wednesday should be to enhance the introduction and history, as we stated in our initial goals, and figure out if there is an image that we can include. I've made improvements on the Introduction but the History is still pretty minimal.

I'm also going ahead and making sure all the references and citations work. Fixing those issues now. Theplantus (talk) 18:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Still having issues with reference no. 12, but the rest of the citations are now functional and standardized. Theplantus (talk) 18:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion, I will find other information can enhance the introduction and history, by the way, I'm not sure whether all of us have to edit the page? or just you edit the page as a group?JIE124 (talk) 19:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I added a bit under the History section because I found a new source for information about that. I found an image that I thought would be good but I can not verify that the image is available through Creative Commons. Have either of you had any luck with images? Theplantus (talk) 20:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I also find an image, (http://mastersofmedia.hum.uva.nl/2014/09/10/crowdsourcing-for-the-creative-industry/), the image is in this site, I'm not pretty sure what Creative Commons is. So, I'm sorry that I just find an image without any verification. JIE124 (talk) 22:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be good if you could make an edit to the actual page, JIE124 and Silent.x.Noise. I've just been editing the page so far because I want to get the editing done soon. If you guys go ahead and make edits to the page, too, I can copy-edit them. Theplantus (talk) 23:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, most images are from creative crowdsourcing platforms. Because it's a concept, it would be hard to find good images for this article. Silent.x.noise (talk) 00:41, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Then maybe we don't need an image? I think that's fine. I agree that it's a difficult article for visualizations. Theplantus (talk) 00:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree we can drop the image and focus on the content and citation. Silent.x.noise (talk)

Useful reference
Here is a blog article defining creative crowdsourcing (http://yannigroth.com/2012/07/07/defining-creative-crowdsourcing-crowdsourcing-of-creative-activities/). I think it looks useful, but I don't know how to summarize it. Silent.x.noise (talk) 02:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Silent.x.noise, I have read the article you give, I think it a good source. At the end of the article, the author gives the definition "Creative crowdsourcing happens when an organization uses the internet to externalize the execution of a creative task to a crowd of individuals". And the author get this definition step by step, that is to say, he separate the Crowdsourcing Creative Work into single word, and discuss them one by one, then, integrate them to give his final idea. Maybe you can summarize it one word by one word like the author does, them integrate them to be a final summary.JIE124 (talk) 03:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello Silent.x.noise, I have read the source you mentioned and I think it is quite helpful to the article since the it explains not only the word itself but also some conceptions and situations related to the article. Thank you for the contribution.CesareNoNo (talk) 21:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I have found another source stating some research about collaboration and mechanism within the framework of CCW.(http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/1870000/1869096/p22-kittur.pdf?ip=150.212.8.61&id=1869096&acc=ACTIVE%20SERVICE&key=AA86BE8B6928DDC7%2E3F18A282B75518AA%2E4D4702B0C3E38B35%2E4D4702B0C3E38B35&CFID=565424234&CFTOKEN=29872751&__acm__=1449093632_3948e76e33c4a853bae0f9c0cdb6ca7b) CesareNoNo (talk) 22:07, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Creatives
It hard to find more useful source for me to improve the History and Introduction Sections. So, I try to find something to add into Aspect of creative crowdsourcing Section. I think that creatives should be an aspect of creative crowdsourcing. So, I add this part, the source I find have already referenced.JIE124 (talk) 02:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I think I have found some relatively recent source about the History and Introduction Sections and it does make a point. I have added the cite and edited the History part of the article.CesareNoNo (talk) 21:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

First sentence
Here is the first sentence I wrote for the article.

"Crowdsourcing creative work (CCW, also known as creative crowdsourcing) is the process of gathering novel and useful solutions for creative tasks through an open call to the online crowd, often implemented as the form of a contest."

I tried to keep most of the original sentence and added more insight to the creative part. The rest of the paragraph seems OK. Then I will add a little introduction to the discussion on this topic. Silent.x.noise (talk) 18:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I think this sentence

"Creative crowdsourcing benefits from the unique properties of the web: it allows users to collaborate remotely and asynchronously in a single web environment.[6] Although creative crowdsourcing represents one possible method for soliciting innovative work, it is not the only means."

was added by Theplantus?

The sentence might a bit technical with words like "asynchronously" and "soliciting". Maybe it's just me, or do you guys think we can simplify this sentence a bit? Silent.x.noise (talk) 18:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I think that "soliciting" is not technical. In other hand, maybe some of the reader can not understand what "asynchronously" is. I'm not pretty sure, maybe "remotely" and "asynchronously" can be change to "from different place and" and "operate the work without disturbing each other", Just like this.JIE124 (talk) 18:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, what you have summarized is good, I think you can go ahead to add them into the page.JIE124 (talk) 18:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback, Silent.x.noise. You are probably right about "asynchronously" being too technical. I'll see what I can do to make that sound better! Theplantus (talk) 19:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I also fixed a slight grammatical issue with the first sentence of the introduction.

OK, I took out "asynchronously" because I realized it might be redundant because "remote" suggests that people aren't in the same place at the same time. I replaced "soliciting" with "requesting and collecting", as that seems to be a more accurate definition of what crowdsourcing actually does. I agree that soliciting wasn't the right fit! Thanks for catching that!

Theplantus (talk) 19:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for the edit! Silent.x.noise (talk) 23:07, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Also just fixed the references so that the access dates are all standardized. Theplantus (talk) 00:45, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Reference and History of Crowdsourcing Creative Work
The history part of this article lacks recent information and specific description. Also I believe speculative work needs to be explained more thoroughly. CesareNoNo (talk) 01:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I think

Hi CesareNoNo. I'm not sure if you've read the preceding discussion in this Talk section but we have addressed the primary issues we set out in our goals. I'm not sure what specific changes you were thinking of making?Theplantus (talk) 00:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

It's some supplements to the History part and a citation about the Criticism part.CesareNoNo (talk) 01:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

If you want to go ahead and make those edits and keep us updated here, that would be helpful. I believe this assignment is supposed to be done by tonight, however, so I had finished with my edits. I'm happy to copy-edit as needed. Theplantus (talk) 01:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)