This phenomenon is primarily analyzed in terms of ‘eficiency’, involving the relations between the tasks to be accomplished, the populations concerned and the returns (Corney et al. 2009; Geiger et al. 2011). It is overwhelmingly viewed in terms of productivity (Huberman, Romero and Wu 2009) or ‘open innovation’. Corney et al. (2009) propose that crowdsourcing can be defined in terms of three dimensions. Firstly, they categorize crowdsourcing depending on the nature of the tasks (for instance, creation, value creation, or organization). They then outline a second dimension related to requirements (what individual, collective and expert skills are needed). The third dimension concerns the sort of remuneration ofered (whether the work will be voluntary or paid, for instance). The French researchers Schenk and Guittard (2011) use a concept of crowdsourcing which encompasses the conclusions of earlier work, setting their argument in a managerial framework. Doan, Ramakrishnan and Halevy (2011) approach the problematic of crowdsourcing systems on the web from a broader perspective: as well as classifying the nature of the tasks and players that define the system, they also discuss the implicit or explicit nature of the collaborative labour, and its impact on the objectives to be achieved. The net outcome is a multiplication of activities, and dozens of potential definitions of crowdsourcing. According to the Spanish researchers Estellés-Arolas and González-Ladrón-de-Guevara (2012) there are at least thirty-six original definitions, ranging across all disciplines.
This means the term can be applied indistinctly to multiple activities, digital or not. The label has become an ‘umbrella’ term (Geiger et al. 2011; Ridge 2014), an ‘all-encompassing’ and ‘generic’ label (Belleflamme et al. 2011: 3). This often renders it ‘inoperative’ or, from the opposite point of view, makes it flexible enough to apply to multiple activities that are dificult to distinguish or define. In our quantitative study of a sample of French Internet users, only 9% were capable of giving a definition of crowdsourcing and citing specific platforms and projects.
Nonetheless, in many respects these definitions intersect with the concept of convergence developed by the American researcher Henry Jenkins (2006). On the basis of his early research on fans, Jenkins suggests that participative culture marks a point of meeting and convergence between industrial and media strategies, on the one hand, and user-produced content on the other. With the same emphasis on ‘empowerment’ and collective intelligence, Jenkins sees this as enabling a transformation of traditional industrial logic. From that point on, the ‘ascendant innovation’ championed by researchers like Von Hippel (2005), and the ‘anointing’ and ‘cult’ of the amateur described by the French researcher Patrice Flichy (2010), were seen as emancipatory for individual and collective alike. A majority of works and articles follow this common theme of a ‘positivist’ return of the amateur, concentrating on the development of new digital usages, horizontal relations modifying the production and capitalisation cycle and increased cultural democratization. However, some critical assessments stand out, such as the work of former Silicon Valley entrepreneur Andrew Keen (2007) or that of digital media pioneer Jaron Lanier (2011), who both note new forms of alienation and subjection. For proponents of the ‘positivist’ position it is ‘natural’ (in Roland Barthes’ mythological sense of naturalization) that this turn toward the Internet user/citizen should be accompanied by a financial commitment, allowing them to realize the projects they are most passionate about.
18
Cultural Crowdfunding: Platform Capitalism, Labour and Globalization