My text is about the controversies surounding crowdsourcing. It takes a pending class action law suit against a particular crowdsourcing platform in the US as an occasion to discuss the ethical considerations that have to be taken into account when it comes to questions of labour and fair wages in crowdsourcing in general and in the field of design in particular. While commiting to academic standards the style of writing has the goal to be accesible to a broader non-expert readership. It aims to provide criteria to evaluate the variety of modes of production associated with crowdsourcing.

The text was written as part of the research track of the international media art festival transmediale. The theme of transmediale in 2013 was "Back When Pluto Was a Planet". In 2006, Pluto was "deplanetised" and transmediale used the BWPWAP theme to look at how media and internet culture has changed since then. The article was published in the digitial academic journal of transmedial in February (http://www.aprja.net/?page_id=46). It was also the basis for a talk at the festival and I published a revised and condensed version on my website.

The intent of the text is to show that the complexty of crowdsoucing does not allow for simple value judgements. Depending of the profession, people tend to see crowdsourcing either as the perfect solution to various problems or as a wicked method of exploitation. Especially in design, the latter position is common. By discussing the different parameters that effect the ethical dimension of crowdsourcing, the text shows that it would be to narrowly condidered to condemn crowdsourcing as a whole but at the same time, that there are systemic problems that need to be addressed.

I am in the second year of writing a PhD thesis on crowdsourcing in design. The text therefore is based on a longer research process as well a on many discussions that I had with various stakeholder in crowdsourcing. Through my research I realised that the term crowdsouring is used for a variety of processes and with different connotations. The text unpacks the different modes of production for which the term crowsourcing is used in order to then be better able to situate the specifics of design-crowdsourcing in that context. In other words: It does not just say why crowdsourcing in design is bad but why it is problemetic (and to some extent unethical) in relation to other forms of online collaboration. My research process is based on a triangulation of working with a broad set of literature, interviews with people in the crowdsourcing industry and an ethnographic study, in which I take part in crowdsourcing platforms for design as a participant observer.

The article helps to create an awareness for the chances and risks of crowdsourcing in design. It is meant to not only be a contribution to the academic discourse but also provied a broader audience with arguments and parameters with which to discuss crowdsourcing and the ethics of it in a more differentiated and constructive way. In the long run, such a broader discussion across professions is the only way to address the problematic side of crowdsourcing and to establish common standards of fairness that organisers of crowdsourcing can be evaluated by or live up to if fairness plays a role to them. If that is too idealistic, such criteria for evaluation can at least help aspiring designer to make a decision wether to become part of a crowdsourcing platform or not.