Zook et al. (2010) describe the ways in which crowdsourced VGI was operationalized through the 2010 earthquake in Haiti, with emphasis on the response organized by CrisisCamp Haiti, OpenStreetMap, Ushahidi, and GeoCommons. The authors refer to the principle that “given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow” in deference of the suitability of crowdsourced VGI. It’s an interesting thought that the source of concerns for uncertainty, namely the contribution of non-experts, might also be the means to address uncertainty. The principle appears to rely on the ability of the crowd to converge upon some truth, but over the course the semester I’ve become less and less confident in the existence of such truth. It’s conceivable that what appears to be objective to some might ultimately be sensitive to vagueness or ambiguity. The argument that VGI need only be “good enough” to assist recovery workers is a reminder that this discussion is perhaps less pertinent to disaster response.
Still, I wonder if the principle holds if there is some minimum technical barrier to contribution. Differential data availability based on development is often realized in the differential technical ability of professionals and amateurs. It’s easy to imagine how remote mapping might renew concerns for local autonomy and self-determination. I thought the Ushahidi example provided an interesting answer to such concerns, making use of more widely available technologies than those ubiquitous within the Web 2.0. GeoCommons is another reminder that crowdsourcing challenges are not limited to expert/non-expert divide, but there are necessarily there are implications for interoperability, congruence, and collaboration.