“Crowds” is a difficult term to define. Some argue against using the term community to define crowds and to some extend I would agree. Instead, I would suggest the following. A crowd, in a digital sense, is a group of people with a common set of values working towards a common goal in a shared space that promotes “collaboration, openness, active learning, and reciprocity” (Draxler and Winet). I want to emphasise shared spaces because Draxler and Winet express that “community … is perhaps defined less by shared space than shared values”, which is incorrect because cultural factors will impact someone’s values and therefore impact the crowds that are drawn (Draxler and Winet).

The internet has provided a medium for a group of people to come together and work collaboratively. One such platform is Wikipedia, which is a system of networks and conversations (Graham). These platforms allow “user-generated content” and allows “an opportunity to engage their students and the wider public in new ways” (Santo and Lucas). Engaging with these platforms does bring up other problems. Unfortunately, some authors do not like to publish openly on these types of platforms because it raises questions about authority and authorship. A decision needs to be made by the author on “how much of their disciplinary ‘authority’ they are prepared to ‘share’ in this new public space” (Rosenzweig). I think this is one disadvantage of working so openly; you’re authority to talk about these subjects is under constant scrutiny.

Further, some have issues engaging the non-academic community, which is usually the main audience for these types of open sourced crowded publications. They would prefer to engage with other academics and students instead (Santo and Lucas). However, there is a benefit to publishing this way and that is it becomes much easier to participate with other academics and students openly. Currently, most scholarly journals can only be accessed if your institution has purchased a subscription to it, making it difficult for non-academics and students to access content. In fact, some of the content that might be available without a subscription may actually be less credible and reliable than what might be found on crowded content (Nawrotzki and Dougherty). By publishing open sourced, an opportunity arises to allow academics and non-academics to discuss and contemplate the subject matter in an environment that not only allows change but also promotes it. It also “help[s] the public make sense of primary sources” (Nawrotzki and Dougherty).

While Wikipedia does often have a negative persona attributed to it, it can in fact be good because “Wikipedia community does effectively gauge basic historical knowledge and can exclude claims that lack a factual basis” (Wolff). Wikipedia is also updated by on average males aged 26 who have at least a bachelor’s degree, which means these authors have some credibility and background in what they are publishing (Wolff).

One small problem with these crowd sourced platforms is the issue of biases. While Wikipedia has put in place mediums to prevent biases from coming through in their content, there are still ways for it to happen. For example, Martha Saxton explains in her article “Wikipedia and Women’s History: A Classroom Experience” that her attempts at making women’s history more prominent on Wikipedia failed because other authors did not feel it was worth mentioning.