6. #A Review of Information Verification used in Crowdsourcing
What is Crowdsourcing? I have heard many interpretations of the term used in difference contexts throughout the years. As my review is mainly looking at the verification of User Generated Content (UGC) in general, crowdsourcing can be broadly defined as 'the practice of obtaining needed services, ideas, or content by soliciting contributions from a large group of people and especially from the online community. (Merriam Webster Online 2014)
With the rising of crowdsourcing platforms such as “Ushahidi” that means “witness” in Kiswahili, journalists, agencies, states, businesses, and even individuals can start their own mapping website and enable the public to post reports to it. People can organise more quickly, find others who share their views and work together in dispersed locations to produce sources of information. (Ford 2012, p.33).
But as the sources of UGC grow and the volume of data increases, users of the technology are more and more interested about the authenticity of the information in ensuring they don’t publish anything that is false (Bradshaw 2018). Further, conflict about what information is considered “verified” and “real” can occur between, journalists broadcasting the content, and government officials acting on the information on behalf of the state.
‘Research has demonstrated just how easy it is to create false memories for an event through external suggestions or leading questions. This ‘misinformation effect’ is thought to be a pervasive phenomenon that relates to the reporting of incorrect memory statements after exposure to misleading information’. (Patterson & Peterson 2012, p.735)
I agree with Ford’s assertions that “social life of information” needs to be considered when used in crowdsourcing (Ford 2012, p.36). In their studies on witness memory, Petterson & Paterson (2012, p.735) suggest the three common ways that a witness may be exposed to post-event information that potentially impacts on their recollection of the event is; suggestive questioning; re-description of an event such a media report; and information received from a co-witness. Publishers of UGC can be exposed to all these factors, particularly in the case of people reporting online on behalf of those who are unable to.
Therefore, how do we better verify UGC? Ford (2012, p.37) states that verification is best done outside crowdsourcing platforms and often from anything available online. Bruns et al. (2012, p. 37) claims that the use of police service media unit throughout the Queensland floods provided reassurance to the public that what was being shared was accurate. Others suggest it is best verified when overlaid with other online sources.
Eliott Higgins illustrates this in the video below through the explanation of geolocation as a verification and proactive news-gathering technique.
Bradshaw (2018) believes there has been a shift of focus on UGC as eyewitness material, to a focus on UGC as a quick way to quote public figures, and I want to believe this prediction. Until then, we need to heed due diligence and responsibility to both those who report and publish, and to those who commercially use or act upon UGC.
References
Bradshaw, P 2018, ‘FAQ: How the use UGC and verification has changed in journalism’, viewed 25 January 2019, <https://onlinejournalismblog.com/2018/01/06/faq-how-the-use-of-ugc-and-verification-has-changed-in-journalism/>.
First Draft 2016, Eliot Higgins demonstrates geolocation for FDlive at the Guardian, 14 May, viewed 30 January 2019, < https://youtu.be/D7zvsXv2ECI>.
Ford, H 2012, 'Crowd Wisdom', Index on Censorship, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 33-39.
Merriam Webster Online 2014, 'crowdsourcing entry', viewed 25 January 2019,<http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/crowdsourcing>.
Petterson, B & Paterson, H 2012, ‘Culture and Conformity: The Effects of Independent and Interdependent Self-Construal on Witness Memory’, Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, vol. 19, no. 5, pp.735-744.