As I am preparing my source evaluation unit with my Big History colleagues, I encounter again the complicated truth about how we seek and use information. I have not been completely happy with how I teach this, and I have been revising this lesson for years!

The truth is we all use information in different ways and the quality of the information can also vary with our needs. Sometimes Wikipedia is quick and A-ok because the stakes are not high. Sometimes I know enough about the subject to make my own judgments about what is stated. And sometimes I have to don the cloak of humility when I research and start at the question “What makes this source credible?”
The complicated part is knowing when  I really need quality information, and accepting that seeking quality is harder work than just typing into Google.

Part of the reason I have not been happy with my years of lessons is my inability to convert or at least convince the students about the full glory of research!  For me, that full glory is you become informed, and you control the process. I love that.  So I revise on.  This year I want to use crowdsourcing as a lever for understanding research.

As I revised this lesson, I did some research on crowdsourcing as a phenomenon and in action.  Two articles I found especially interesting are cited below. Estellés-Arolas and González-Ladrón-de-Guevara work in defining crowdsourcing has led me on a path for my newest iteration of the lesson.
They state crowdsourcing initiatives have eight characteristics in common.  This is so interesting to think bout with Yelp, Wikipedia, etc..

• the task at hand 
• the crowd.
• the recompense obtained, 
• the crowdsourcer or initiator of the crowdsourcing activity.
• what is obtained by them following the crowdsourcing process?
• the type of process.
• the call to participate.
• and the medium. 

I can see  6 of these characteristics working for examining the validity of the crowdsourced work. Or really any source.

1. the task at hand   What is your task?  How important is it to you?  What value do you put on it?




2. the crowd.  Where can you find information? What crowds can you call on? How do these crowds differ?




3. the recompense obtained. What does the source get from providing this information? Aah ah, bias reveal?




4. the crowdsourcer or initiator of the crowdsourcing activity.  Why does this source exist? Who is the source





5. the type of process. Is this work edited, reviewed, held to a certain standard
   





6. the medium. Does the medium affect the quality of the source?
   

Thomas McAndrew studied a form of crowdsourcing that seems to produce better results.  The crowd asks questions as well as answers them.  The nature of questions clarifies the final answers.   I want to include this idea in my lessons as well.  Ask clarifying questions.

I’ve decided to embrace the complications.  I hope I get to the full glory.

McAndrew, Thomas C., et al. “Reply & Supply: Efficient crowdsourcing when workers do more than