1. This article provides a review and classification of crowdwork, aiming to map the complexity of this emerging terrain.
2. The typology developed highlights commonalities across areas, enabling connections between them.
3. The framework serves as a heuristic device for considering the implications for work and employment in terms of control and coordination, regulation and classification, and collective agency and representation.
The article is generally reliable in its approach to providing a review and classification of crowdwork. It draws from multidisciplinary literatures to provide an overview of the area, while also avoiding side-tracking into debates about what constitutes crowdwork. The typology developed is useful in highlighting commonalities across areas, enabling connections between them.
However, there are some potential biases that should be noted when considering the trustworthiness of the article. For example, it does not explore counterarguments or present both sides equally; instead it focuses solely on providing an overview of crowdwork from one perspective. Additionally, there is no evidence provided for some of the claims made in the article, which could lead to readers forming inaccurate conclusions about certain aspects of crowdwork. Furthermore, there is a lack of discussion around possible risks associated with crowdwork platforms which could be explored further in future research.