Comments on: How to Make a Wise Crowd http://twopointouch.com/2006/web-2-0/how-to-make-a-wise-crowd/ web 2.0, blogs and social media Mon, 30 May 2011 20:58:01 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: Another Post about GooTube, but descending rapidly into specious generalisations at twopointouch: web 2.0, blogs and social mediahttp://twopointouch.com/2006/web-2-0/how-to-make-a-wise-crowd/#comment-798 Another Post about GooTube, but descending rapidly into specious generalisations at twopointouch: web 2.0, blogs and social media Tue, 10 Oct 2006 00:57:12 +0000 http://twopointouch.com/2006/09/13/how-to-make-a-wise-crowd/#comment-798 [...] The market believes this can work. Long-time readers will know that I am a believer in the Wisdom of Crowds. As the book says, when they’re properly orchestrated, the masses can make better decisions than experts. Stock Markets are not ideal examples of this, I think, since reputations and rumour holds sway; success breeds success and vice-versa, but they come close in some respects. [...] […] The market believes this can work. Long-time readers will know that I am a believer in the Wisdom of Crowds. As the book says, when they’re properly orchestrated, the masses can make better decisions than experts. Stock Markets are not ideal examples of this, I think, since reputations and rumour holds sway; success breeds success and vice-versa, but they come close in some respects. […]

]]> By: Stock Tip: Bet on Collective Intelligence at twopointouch: web 2.0, blogs and social mediahttp://twopointouch.com/2006/web-2-0/how-to-make-a-wise-crowd/#comment-460 Stock Tip: Bet on Collective Intelligence at twopointouch: web 2.0, blogs and social media Sun, 17 Sep 2006 00:28:23 +0000 http://twopointouch.com/2006/09/13/how-to-make-a-wise-crowd/#comment-460 [...] As I’ve observed before, marshalling collective intelligence, or the wisdom of crowds, on the Internet isn’t always very easy. Social news voting sites like digg are susceptible to social influences. Wikis are also weakened by this: do you really want to edit what your boss says? One way, though, to generate the necessary conditions (independence, self-interest, diversity) is to set up a virtual stock market. [...] […] As I’ve observed before, marshalling collective intelligence, or the wisdom of crowds, on the Internet isn’t always very easy. Social news voting sites like digg are susceptible to social influences. Wikis are also weakened by this: do you really want to edit what your boss says? One way, though, to generate the necessary conditions (independence, self-interest, diversity) is to set up a virtual stock market. […]

]]> By: Ian Delaneyhttp://twopointouch.com/2006/web-2-0/how-to-make-a-wise-crowd/#comment-440 Ian Delaney Thu, 14 Sep 2006 08:25:14 +0000 http://twopointouch.com/2006/09/13/how-to-make-a-wise-crowd/#comment-440 Mark/Tony, It's an absolutely fascinating debate. I use wikipedia on a regular basis. What I find is that if something is wrong, you can usually tell from the way it's written. @ Deidre, You mean the one I wrote about <a href="http://twopointouch.com/2006/09/07/encyclopaedic-knowledge/" rel="nofollow">here</a>? ;) It is a really interesting post and perhaps shows some ways the system could be refined to bring more experts into the 'management'. Mark/Tony,
It’s an absolutely fascinating debate. I use wikipedia on a regular basis. What I find is that if something is wrong, you can usually tell from the way it’s written.

@ Deidre,
You mean the one I wrote about here? ;) It is a really interesting post and perhaps shows some ways the system could be refined to bring more experts into the ‘management’.

]]> By: Deirdre Molloyhttp://twopointouch.com/2006/web-2-0/how-to-make-a-wise-crowd/#comment-437 Deirdre Molloy Thu, 14 Sep 2006 00:00:01 +0000 http://twopointouch.com/2006/09/13/how-to-make-a-wise-crowd/#comment-437 Ross Mayfield of <a href="http://ross.typepad.com/blog/" rel="nofollow">Socialtext</a> (and lately the <a href="http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/shanerichmond/sept06/sharecontrol.htm" rel="nofollow">Daily Telegraph</a>) <a href="http://ross.typepad.com/blog/2006/09/who_makes_wikip.html" rel="nofollow">points</a> to a very <a href="http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/whowriteswikipedia" rel="nofollow">interesting post</a> Aaron Swartz made on the evolving Wikipedia situation, based on some preliminary research. It seems to have opened a hornet's nest... Ross Mayfield of Socialtext (and lately the Daily Telegraph) points to a very interesting post Aaron Swartz made on the evolving Wikipedia situation, based on some preliminary research. It seems to have opened a hornet’s nest…

]]> By: Markhttp://twopointouch.com/2006/web-2-0/how-to-make-a-wise-crowd/#comment-435 Mark Wed, 13 Sep 2006 20:37:04 +0000 http://twopointouch.com/2006/09/13/how-to-make-a-wise-crowd/#comment-435 Guess it boils down to the question of who we're going to trust with fact checking/editing. Is it going to be an editorial board whose credentials we can check and about whom we can do research anytime? Or is it going to be anyone who wants to post? Over time, inaccuracies on Wikipedia may get corrected. But that only helps people who actively follow the subject/thread. Someone who is looking for quick background or research for a book report will believe that inaccuracy as fact. Guess it boils down to the question of who we’re going to trust with fact checking/editing. Is it going to be an editorial board whose credentials we can check and about whom we can do research anytime? Or is it going to be anyone who wants to post?

Over time, inaccuracies on Wikipedia may get corrected. But that only helps people who actively follow the subject/thread. Someone who is looking for quick background or research for a book report will believe that inaccuracy as fact.

]]> By: Tony Alaimohttp://twopointouch.com/2006/web-2-0/how-to-make-a-wise-crowd/#comment-434 Tony Alaimo Wed, 13 Sep 2006 18:59:36 +0000 http://twopointouch.com/2006/09/13/how-to-make-a-wise-crowd/#comment-434 There is a paradigm shift and Wikipedia is at the forefront. No longer is correct and vast amounts of information locked up behind prices. It is free on Wikipedia allowing everyone to be a part of it, with an internet connection, that the majority of Americans at least have. There are many experts that display facts based on a biased opinion.. makes you wonder, are they really facts or just data selectively used to publish. This can be said about wikipedia too, however the open atmosphere allows for more than one expert opinion which sometimes in other sources ie: britannica may not be the case. There is a paradigm shift and Wikipedia is at the forefront. No longer is correct and vast amounts of information locked up behind prices. It is free on Wikipedia allowing everyone to be a part of it, with an internet connection, that the majority of Americans at least have. There are many experts that display facts based on a biased opinion.. makes you wonder, are they really facts or just data selectively used to publish. This can be said about wikipedia too, however the open atmosphere allows for more than one expert opinion which sometimes in other sources ie: britannica may not be the case.

]]> By: Markhttp://twopointouch.com/2006/web-2-0/how-to-make-a-wise-crowd/#comment-433 Mark Wed, 13 Sep 2006 17:20:49 +0000 http://twopointouch.com/2006/09/13/how-to-make-a-wise-crowd/#comment-433 Trusting Wikipedia is a decision to discard the current paradigm of what we know and how we know. Its a choice to adopt a methodology spawned from a technological advancement rather than a methodology proven by centuries of scientific advancement. Wikipedia and openness are attrative. Create your own knowledge is enticing and plays well to Internet users who believe that the web changes everything -opening doors and bringing down the gates of hierarchy. But when it comes to actually determining facts, we, as a society, have generally recognized a certain pool of experts as the keepers of Knowledge (capital K), as it were. These are people who specialize in a particular area of research or knowledge and therefore are regarded as experts. If we want to now say everyone should have input into the general body of Knowledge, we are opting to ignore truth and embrace truthiness. I've blogged further on this at http://www.vertabase.com/blog/wikipedia-knowledge-or-hype/ Trusting Wikipedia is a decision to discard the current paradigm of what we know and how we know. Its a choice to adopt a methodology spawned from a technological advancement rather than a methodology proven by centuries of scientific advancement.

Wikipedia and openness are attrative. Create your own knowledge is enticing and plays well to Internet users who believe that the web changes everything –opening doors and bringing down the gates of hierarchy.

But when it comes to actually determining facts, we, as a society, have generally recognized a certain pool of experts as the keepers of Knowledge (capital K), as it were. These are people who specialize in a particular area of research or knowledge and therefore are regarded as experts.

If we want to now say everyone should have input into the general body of Knowledge, we are opting to ignore truth and embrace truthiness.

I’ve blogged further on this at http://www.vertabase.com/blog/wikipedia-knowledge-or-hype/

]]>