Chris Blow left a comment on one of my previous crowdsourcing posts. I’m reposting it here, since he makes good points from the point of view of somebody closely involved in developing crowdsourcing solutions, and specifically Ushahidi. I felt it was particularly important to give his comment attention given that nobody else involved with Ushahidi thought it was worth their time engaging in a public discussion about the role of crowdsourcing in humanitarian operations.
I’ll then reply to his points in two separate blog posts. The first reply deals with why I wrote the MobileActive article in the first place, and why I took the tone I did. The second reply addresses Chris’ substantive points about the role of crowdsourcing in emergencies. This might seem like a lot of energy to expend on a single topic, and it might make some people think that I dwell obsessively on “crowdsourcing”, but please rest assured that, when I’m not writing this guff, I don’t think about crowdsourcing at all.
I read your short post last winter “The Bear vs. Shark of Data Entry” and was quite moved by the notion that ostensibly “inefficient” modes of communication could fuel essential humanitarian motivations in all of us.
Your post must have had great timing for me, as it sparked a number of thoughts: it helped me consider the extent to which I was implicitly working to eliminate my contact with people “on the ground.” It made me think more critically about streamlined systems that removed the need to actually “touch” anything. And it reminded me of the essential role of empathy and connectedness as aspects of long-term, systemic value. Yours was a simple and profound critique, and it really pushed me toward in a richer, more engaged role. Thank you.
When I read “How Useful is Humanitarian Crowdsourcing,” I was struck by the difference in tone.
Your criticism, while well-intended and I think quite necessary, struck me as an unreasonably narrow thought experiment. I realize that assuming the role of a UN officer was a productive critical lens for you, but it did not sound like the Currion who had previously so informed my sensibilities, and by design it excludes many of the aspects of Ushahidi that I think are the most important.
For me, the value of the 4636 system was never been just about the actionability of the data — I saw the reports were profoundly flawed as soon as they began to arrive. There were amazing sparks of actionability — glimpses of something we can all fumble toward somehow — but it was always clear that these were no replacement for well-tested logistics plan.
But, while I was quite aware of how utterly limited the data were, this never made me question the basic value of an open communications system during this crisis. When I am in a crisis, I want strong systems in place that let me text anything I want. The poor state of these communication systems in the developing world is not a substitute for robust analysis and filtration on the part of relief agencies. The inadequacy of the network should not be a “first pass” filter. There may be a limited amount of resources on a particular day in a particular crisis — but in the long term I believe that there are millions of people who could be engaged in productive and powerful work through diverse and open platforms. Particularly I see a great promise in networks which help people in crisis see their own neighborhood, to help each other, rather than always relying on the aid worker. So, information which seems predictable and “not novel enough” to an aid worker might be quite powerful to someone who lives down the street. In this sense, I could never reject this data any more than I could reject the howl of a grieving father. These are not always “useful” voices in a logistical sense but rather a natural outgrowth of people having visibility on the network, and I think a critical aspect of civic capacity on a local level. There is also qualitative value in having a connection to these voices across cultural and national borders.
In this sense, I have a hard time understanding how you could question whether it has “any substantive value.” To me the value is self-evident, if complex, and problematic for traditional patterns of response.