In this case, work is being farmed out to individuals by a central system. I am not skeptical about this technology at all.
You aren't thinking this through all the way. How does the system know whether you typed accurately or not? How does it have 99.1% accuracy?
It used the collective to correct the individual.
Incidently, this same technique is being used by spammers to defeat captcha systems. They set up their own captcha thingy (on a page with desireable content). But, they trick the users by simply echoing the captcha from the target site (e.g. Yahoo)... so their users think they are getting access to one site... but really they are giving automated spambots access to Yahoo accounts.
Similar technique, but there's a crucial difference. The spammers don't care if the users are right or not. If enough are right they get what they want and they don't care about the misses and wrong uses.
Recaptcha is digitizing books for important uses. It needs to be able to know if the user accurately typed in the words, and it's very different from captcha in that captcha aims to make the user solve a problem the technology already knows the answer to. They know what the letters are and they make you recognize and type them.
Recaptcha is a project that aims to do what the technology can't do. It is digitizing words that the system didn't know the answer to. It can only do this through the wisdom of the crowd. If one person provides an answer they don't know whether to trust it. But by having multiple people provide the answer they learn how to have the crowd do it's own quality control.
Get it yet? It's getting really tedious if you aren't even wiling to cede that there's possible utility for large-scale teamwork or that there is useful and intelligent collective data to be mined in large datasets. If we are still at the level where you deny the very possibility of these concepts then I think you are being too obdurate to really be helped by any good example of crowdsourcing. You seem convinced already that it doesn't exist because you've defined it as not existing.
You define the crowd as dumb so when I give you an example of Google using the crowd's information you portray it as "smart Google, dumb crowd" and stick to the mantra that the crowd was not wise.
If that's what you are going for, what's the point of giving you good examples of this? You just dismiss it with a facile characterization of the crowd and ignore that something very valuable came out of it.
I guess this all boils down to this: are you interested in the prominent applications using these concepts or are you asking for something that will fit your personal definition of "wise"? Because if you've already decided that crowds aren't wise by definition and are going to dismiss all the examples merely by calling the crowd dumb then this is a very pointless exchange.