Akahele - Making a moot point, by Judd Bagley Options

[thekohser]

Akahele - Making a moot point
-- Judd Bagley

In his book “The Wisdom of Crowds”, James Surowiecki approaches crowds with the assumption that each member, however diverse, has one thing in common: a desire to “get it right” with respect to finding solutions to whatever challenges they jointly face. But what happens when some members of the crowd want to get it wrong? Can the influence of a few outliers alter the apparent will of the masses?

[the fieryangel]

Akahele - Making a moot point
-- Judd Bagley

In his book “The Wisdom of Crowds”, James Surowiecki approaches crowds with the assumption that each member, however diverse, has one thing in common: a desire to “get it right” with respect to finding solutions to whatever challenges they jointly face. But what happens when some members of the crowd want to get it wrong? Can the influence of a few outliers alter the apparent will of the masses?

With a perceptive comment by Cedric :

If I recall correctly, Surowiecki chose the title of his book to serve as a counterpoint to Charles Mackey’s famous Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds...

Another great piece by Judd!

[Moulton]

The Muses

There is wisdom and there is cleverness.

In a contest of wits, cleverness trumps wisdom.

Among the other diversions of the Internet, we find a variety of Massive Multi-Player Online AssClown Games in which the players progressively level up from Vandal to AssClown to Troll to Hacker to Satirist to Performance Artist.

The Peerless Performance Artist is a rare breed. Charlie Chaplin and Marcel Marceau pwned the genre in their day. Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and Borat vie for the prize today.

A Peerless Performance Artist is not just clever.

A Peerless Performance Artist brings a peerless level of insight to the mirthful game.

Enlightenment is where you find it.

[dogbiscuit]

Akahele - Making a moot point
-- Judd Bagley

In his book “The Wisdom of Crowds”, James Surowiecki approaches crowds with the assumption that each member, however diverse, has one thing in common: a desire to “get it right” with respect to finding solutions to whatever challenges they jointly face. But what happens when some members of the crowd want to get it wrong? Can the influence of a few outliers alter the apparent will of the masses?

With a perceptive comment by Cedric :

If I recall correctly, Surowiecki chose the title of his book to serve as a counterpoint to Charles Mackey’s famous Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds...

Another great piece by Judd!

A little bit of serendipity as I was making a similar point in the Simple thread elsewhere.

The question for me with mob rule is whether it is outlying members of the mob or cynical manipulation of the mob by people who are not really members. For example, I would class JzG as an outlying member who is led along, but I would not class SlimVirgin or Jayjg as mob members - they are beyond the mob seeking to control it; and of course you have Jimbo trying to occasionally direct it or overrule it.

The differentiation is that I don't see a specific agenda with JzG, he just jumps on to subjects that get his goat and goes at it with gay abandon. The real manipulators are not part of the swarm, but have always sought to control and direct it; they are more like self-selected mob-rule managers who saw an opportunity. So I think that although you might class these senior members as outlying, I think the model has another dimension.

[anthony]

I can't quite figure out the thesis of "The Wisdom of Crowds". I certainly don't find anything in it applicable to something like an encyclopedia.

[Moulton]

I can't quite figure out the thesis of "The Wisdom of Crowds". I certainly don't find anything in it applicable to something like an encyclopedia.

Perhaps the Wisdom of the Crowds is a little bit like the Wisdom of Insecurity.

Or, as Daniel Boone might have put it, "First be sure you're right. Then go ahead."

The Wisdom of the Insecure Crowd helps ensure that all questions have been thoroughly thrashed out before the Polis does anything foolish.

Not that the Polis won't do foolish things, anyway. But it gives other people more time to stock up on mops and buckets to clean up the inevitable mess.

[Kato]

Some great Awbreyphonics in the comments section. I remember reading this and admiring it before.

Wikipedia has shown us that a mass medium can be rendered so plastic and so well-leveraged that any part of it can be manipulated by a relatively small number of people, in ways that defy a free society’s usual means to guard against it, so long as the special interests in question have a moderate amount of resources and the will to do so. If there are portions of the content that remain untouched, it is for two reasons only: (1) no one has conceived a stake in them yet, (2) virgin forest makes for good cover.

If you’re thinking that Wikipedia is the Latest Thing in Blows Against The Empire, then you have a DoubleThink coming.