C66 · Topic 5.4 · 40 minutes · IOC-1.E
Quality and participation in crowdsourcing
By the end you can:
- Define provisional evidence states.
- Assess independence and currency.
- Explain moderation trade-offs.
Before this lesson: topics 1.1, 2.3.
- Crowdsourcing
- Obtaining contributions from many participants to help solve a problem or build a resource.
- Corroboration
- Additional supporting evidence, whose independence and relevance must be assessed.
Understand
A quality workflow can keep new information visible while labelling it unconfirmed until it meets a stated rule. Assess whether evidence is independent and current; several copies of one source do not provide several independent checks. Time-sensitive observations may need updates even if they were once well supported.
Corroboration and moderation can reduce errors without guaranteeing truth. Requiring more evidence may delay urgent reports or disadvantage areas with fewer contributors. Evaluate accuracy, timeliness and representation together, and make the rule and remaining uncertainty clear to readers.
Worked example
A fictional rule requires current independent corroboration and moderator review before using the label corroborated.
- A new report remains unconfirmed.
- A copied second report is still not independent corroboration.
- A previously supported but stale report needs updating; meeting the rule is not a guarantee that the real condition is unchanged.
Explore each concept
Choose a concept, change its inputs and follow the explanation. Each example models the stated rule or scenario; completing it is practice rather than evidence of mastery.
- Distributed human contributions
- Citizen science
- Crowdfunding and scientific collaboration
Change it · step through · explain
Change an input, predict what will happen, then advance one step. Read why the state changes, reset and experiment. This fixed teaching model does not save progress or award XP.
Ready · Make a prediction
- Contributionlocal-observationsWaiting
- Quality checkindependent-reviewWaiting
Ready to explore: Citizen science, shared computation and funding
Why: Change an input, predict the first effect, then advance one step.
Try this: Change one input or choose another listed case. Predict the effect, reset and compare the states and governing rule.
Step through and experiment
Change it · step through · explain
Change an input, predict what will happen, then advance one step. Read why the state changes, reset and experiment. This fixed teaching model does not save progress or award XP.
Ready · Make a prediction
- Input 18Waiting
- Input 22Waiting
- Input 3same-sourceWaiting
Ready to experiment
Why: Predict the first change, then advance one step.
Try this: Keep the counts fixed and change provenance. Then set both counts to zero.
Check a misconception
Claim: A photo or second copy automatically makes a report true forever.
Evidence can be stale, dependent or misleading; stated checks reduce uncertainty but do not remove it.
Guided practice
Design labels for new, same-source, corroborated and stale evidence.
Work with a partner. Make a prediction, compare your reasoning, then identify the rule that supports your answer.
Independent transfer
Explain one cost of stronger moderation for an urgent access warning.
Exit check
Why record when an observation was made?
Write your reasoning before comparing with a classmate. If your teacher assigned this task, submit it through My classes to save your work and receive feedback.
Check yourself
Your practice so far
Check an answer to see its rationale.