|
 saltwatermatt rated 18 months ago - "...Surowiecki describes an agricultural fair in England in 1906, at which all manner of people competed to guess the weight of an ox. There were many non-experts in the crowd, so the average of the guesses should have been ridiculously off; but in fact, while the ox actually weighed in at 1,1...
|
|
5 Reviews
-
-
- tbc rated 3 months ago
- "It's Truth versus Equality, and as much as I love Equality, if it comes down to choosing, I'm on the side of Truth."I can't believe I missed this when Larry wrote it. Oh, well. Better late than never.HT: Anthony Sebastian
- saltwatermatt rated 18 months ago
- "...Surowiecki describes an agricultural fair in England in 1906, at which all manner of people competed to guess the weight of an ox. There were many non-experts in the crowd, so the average of the guesses should have been ridiculously off; but in fact, while the ox actually weighed in at 1,198 pounds, the average of the guesses was 1,197 pounds. This, Surowiecki says, illustrates a widely-recurring phenomenon, in which ordinary folks in great numbers acting independently can display behavior that, in aggregate, is more "wise," or accurate, than the greatest expert among them.
Of course, Surowiecki is no fool. His claim isn't that whatever data "crowds" produce are reliable, regardless of circumstances. Among other things, each member of a "crowd" needs make decisions independently of each other. But this is precisely how Wikipedia doesn't work. As he writes:
Diversity and independence are important because the best collective decisions are the product of disagreement and contest, not consensus or compromise. An intelligent group, especially when confronted with cognition problems, does not ask its members to modify their positions in order to let the group reach a decision everyone can be happy with.
But that's exactly what happens on wikis, and on Wikipedia. To be able to work together at all, consensus and compromise are the name of the game. As a result, the Wikipedian "crowd" can often agree upon some pretty ridiculous claims, which are very far from both expert opinion and from anything like an "average" of public opinion on a subject. I don't mean to say that the Wikipedia process is not robust and does not produce a lot of correct answers. It is and it does. But the process does not closely resemble the "wise crowd" phenomena that Surowiecki is explaining.
"
- charlis rated 17 months ago
- This is a fascinating, well-written, and somewhat scholarly article about changes in human knowledge and the challenges of the internet. I read it word for word.
 SickM rated 18 months ago- All that text, arg, cant read, must push stumble button.
- Naruwan rated 18 months ago
- From the page: "It's [Citizendium vs. Wikipedia] Truth versus Equality, and as much as I love Equality, if it comes down to choosing, I'm on the side of Truth."
|
