[limedaring]

The winner gets paid, sure, but the "losers" get nothing for their time.

[mfukar]

Which is exactly what would've happened if the "winner" was hired in the first place without crowdsourcing. What's your point?

[lwhi]

No it isn't.

You have 99 people enter a crowdsourcing 'contest'. One design gets picked - and that person is paid.

98 people have worked on the project for nothing; which wouldn't be the case if the winner was hired in the first place.

[mfukar]

So, are you pleading for the designers' "fear" of this crowdsourcing trend, a fear based on their time being wasted because designs from other people may be better (for any subjective definition of the term)? Are you honestly saying with a straight face that designers should be awarded for any and all their efforts regardless of the quality of their work?

I'm sorry, but they should just suck it up and change. Like the world around them is.

PS: I don't remember the last time that people rewarded me or anybody else just for trying. Perhaps kindergarten, but I have no clear recollections of the daily scrums in there.

[lwhi]

No. I'm not suggesting that all participants should be paid.

I'm suggesting that the model put forth by crowdsourcing is ill-thought out and unfair.

"[..] they should just suck it up and change. Like the world around them is."

I completely disagree. People who exploit others for their own personal gain should always be challenged.

[mfukar]

Since you're not referring to economic fairness, did you mean moral? I don't understand how crowdsourcing is immoral in that sense, or how does that constitute exploitation.

[lwhi]

If someone works for the chance to earn money, how can that be fair in _any_ sense?