View Single Post
Old 05-16-2012, 03:44 PM   #29
Ninjalawyer
Guru
Ninjalawyer ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Ninjalawyer ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Ninjalawyer ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Ninjalawyer ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Ninjalawyer ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Ninjalawyer ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Ninjalawyer ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Ninjalawyer ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Ninjalawyer ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Ninjalawyer ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Ninjalawyer ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Ninjalawyer's Avatar
 
Posts: 826
Karma: 18573626
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Canada
Device: Kobo Touch, Nexus 7 (2013)
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT View Post
That depends on the specific situation. I would submit to you that it would perhaps be unwise to have papers submitted to scientific journals peer-reviewed by a crowd of random strangers, for example.
Oh, I totally agree that crowdsourcing has more or less juice depending on the situation. However, I would note that science can definitely benefit from it in some circumstances. For instances, there's an article here Science News about a computer science problem that spontaneously became a crowdsourced research project. Crowdsourced peer review probably doesn't make sense in most cases because so few people will have relevant knowledge, but I think the peer review process could benefit by making the whole process transparent.

As far as Amazon reviews, the validity of the review certainly increases where there are more reviews. However, the problem of paid reviews is probably much lower in the case of a crowdsourced review system because you can't buy off everyone.

Last edited by Ninjalawyer; 05-16-2012 at 05:27 PM.
Ninjalawyer is offline   Reply With Quote