A Crowd of Experts

One of the interesting questions in debating the value of crowdsourcing is whether the concept can be imported across disciplines. The most successful incarnation of crowdsourcing has undoubtedly been in the world of the news media, especially online. With the implementation of the iReport in CNN's endless repertoire of excessively tech-y news delivery systems, the crowd has been legitimized by an established media organization – a legitimization long forthcoming since the popularity of newsblogs, often run by "ordinary citizens," overtook the popularity of newspaper subscription. But what happens when we try to port crowdsourcing outside of the news arena and into some other common disciplines?

Different disciplines require a unique amount of proficiency and training in order to be competent while partaking in its activities; while it takes a significant level of skill to craft a well-written presentation of information, the actual gathering of information and observing of events requires very little occupational education. On the other hand, it requires several years of rigorous schooling and practicing in order to approach a level of competence in the field of medicine – no ordinary person can simply hop into a surgery room or behind an X-ray machine and deliver acceptable results. This is also the case in engineering – but not necessarily in graphic design. This variation is key to the question of whether crowdsourcing can be ported into a new discipline: when we need greater expertise, the ability to crowdsource significantly decreases. And in the case of education, where we count on teachers to offer an authoritative voice of reason, discussion, excellence, maturity, and understanding, perhaps crowdsourcing falls flat. But what if we change the parameters of the "crowd"?

An experimental surgery hits a dead end. The chief surgeon is called in, but has no ideas that might bring about progress. What if this situation was crowdsourced? Dozens, or even hundreds, of surgeons all weighing in on the situation through a live video feed of the procedure would generate ideas far more quickly than the lone surgery team of this particular hospital. Similarly, if a crucial engineering decision needed to be made regarding the integrity of a particular structure in a critical situation, what would be better than allowing several creative engineering minds to come together to make the decision? When the crowd is made up of experts in that particular field, progress can be made. And perhaps we can turn to this idea in academia.

Grading in school is ultimately subjective: no two classes are graded on the same basis, with the same standards, requiring the same level of mastery. Even math classes – where we expect one right answer – can be nuanced, as processes are sometimes given as much or more importance than the end result. Many of us have even approached a level of comfort with a class where we can write an A or a B paper for that teacher. What if grading was crowdsourced to other teachers with a familiarity of the subject? Of course there would be logistical stipulations – what teacher has time to deal with projects from other classes when they have their hands full with stuff of their own? – but let's say these have been taken care of. Would things be better? Fairer? As rhetoricians, we're programmed to write for our audience. If we wrote to a collection of extremely experienced yet unique writing scholars rather than the individual teacher we've spent several weeks picking apart, wouldn't we create stronger work?

Crowdsourcing won't be a passing craze – it'll work its way into our lives more effectively every day. The question is how it integrates into different disciplines, and perhaps crowdsourcing to experts presents the answer to the question.