There is one confession that I have to make here. When I was responding to your question, I was partly playing the devil’s advocate there. Let me explain more. As I mentioned in one of the tweets. I know a group of people who are currently working on the creation of an Open Access Journal. Their initial idea, was to crowdsource the peer-review part there, well, may be I better just call it review in such case, as there is no peer there. Anyhow, we had a similar discussion to what we have here, however, in that discussion, I had less faith in how the crowdsourcing thing will work for the review process. Apparently, they too were a bit suspicious, so, in the end, they decided to do some mixture between crowdsourcing and traditional peer-reviews. I mentioned this, to say that we have to differentiate between the different facades of the use of crowdsourcing in science. For example, when it comes to using crowdsourcing platforms such as Tahrir Academy to create online lectures and coursework, the crowdsourcing approach in such case may seem to be more logical than, say, the use of the wisdom of the crowd to do journals reviews. How about doing the actual research, can this be crowdsourced? No? I am not sure how this will work, yet, I still hold to what I have said during the session, let our hypothesis be that crowdsourcing is going to work in scientific research, journals reviews or any other part of the academia. Then test our hypothesis, and decide based on the empirical results. I know Wikipedia is not your favourite example, but, back before it started, no one had any trust that a crowdsourced encyclopedia can be of any use. However, now, in some fields the quality of the articles in Wikipedia are much better than they are in Encyclopedia Britannica.