Most of us have seen the Western movie, where the crowd lathers up at the saloon, grabs weapons and rope, and marches, mob-like, down to the sheriff's office, ready to string up some alleged villain down at the livery. The villain wants the sheriff to let him out so he can defend himself. The sheriff grabs the 12-gauge and any handy deputies, and meets the mob outside the front door of the jail. (Editor's note: That doesn't sound too bright, does it? He should maybe hide behind something bulletproof, but that wouldn't be nearly as dramatic.)

To Chat with me on my blog (click here)

These mobs always have one thing in common–a few people, always in the front, are the instigators, the ringleaders. Everyone else is mostly just jazzed up, liquored up maybe, and just going along with the crowd. That is, with the mob.

The sheriff, using his knowledge of how mobs work, points his shotgun and his pistol at the mob leaders in the front of the pack, and says, "You know, Amos, there are way too many of you, but I guarantee that the first two shots out of ol' Betsy here will be aimed directly at you, and I'll get a bunch more of you with my Colt."

Right about then, the mob leaders figure they will be dead before anyone is hung, and they won't get to enjoy the fun. So they decide the effort is not worth the price and go home, grumbling as they retreat. The mob also disperses.

So, too, is it with crowdsourcing. A few people lead the pack, provide most of the input, while most of the rest of the crowd is little more than onlookers, perhaps somewhat lathered up about the topic, but really without much expertise to add anything meaningful to the discussion.

Is that really crowdsourcing, or is it more akin to mobsourcing?

Nemertes Research president and senior founding partner Johna Till Johnson agrees that crowdsourcing, what I will refer to as mobsourcing in the future, is not the best decision-making strategy. She prefers, like I do, to tap into those with the relevant knowledge, the experts on a topic, rather than expect a mob to discover useable solutions for technical issues.

We exchanged a couple of e-mails on the subject after one of her columns came down a little hard on crowdsourcing. She referred to a social networking phenomenon called information cascading, which is "the demonstrated fact people often change their opinions based on those of others–without having any better data." She referred to research that showed that crowds were influenced by the opinions of others in making their choices. As the researchers reported, she says, "The impact of a (person's) own reactions is easily overwhelmed by his or her reactions to others."

"Crowds, in other words, aren't quite as self-correcting as we'd like to believe," Johnson wrote. She says author Robert Heinlein put it well: "Wisdom is not additive; its maximum is that of the wisest man in a given group."

Or the loudest, like those at the head of the lynch mob.

kanderberg@comnews.com