Get Started for FREE
Sign up with Facebook Sign up with X
I don't have a Facebook or a X account
 Your new post is loading...
Scoop.it!
“Nathaniel Tkacz … examines the entire Wikipedia project in the way that we as academics examine a Wikipedia article: questioning at every stage, digging deeper, looking through the project to its source, so as to apprehend its nature and come to a better understanding. Given the role and prominence of Wikipedia and those behind it, and how it has come to exemplify the internet itself, this is a critically important exercise – and Wikipedia and the Politics of Openness is an important book. 
No comment yet.
Sign up to comment
Scoop.it!
The Wikipedia, one of the richest human knowledge repositories on the Internet, has been developed by collective intelligence. To gain insight into Wikipedia, one asks how initial ideas emerge and develop to become a concrete article through the online collaborative process? Led by this question, the author performed a microscopic observation of the knowledge creation process on the recent article, "Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster." The author collected not only the revision history of the article but also investigated interactions between collaborators by making a user-paragraph network to reveal an intellectual intervention of multiple authors. The knowledge creation process on the Wikipedia article was categorized into 4 major steps and 6 phases from the beginning to the intellectual balance point where only revisions were made. To represent this phenomenon, the author developed a visaphor (digital visual metaphor) to digitally represent the article's evolving concepts and characteristics. Then the author created a dynamic digital information visualization using particle effects and network graph structures. The visaphor reveals the interaction between users and their collaborative efforts as they created and revised paragraphs and debated aspects of the article.
Scoop.it!
But the lone genius is a myth that has outlived its usefulness. Fortunately, a more truthful model is emerging: the creative network, as with the crowd-sourced Wikipedia or the writer’s room at “The Daily Show” or — the real heart of creativity — the intimate exchange of the creative pair, such as John Lennon and Paul McCartney and myriad other examples with which we’ve yet to fully reckon.
Scoop.it!
Collective Intelligence and Neutral Point of View (Collective Intelligence and Neutral Point of View http://t.co/9dPNjwTrwL #CRIG2013)
|
Scoop.it!
I sat down with Robert Laubacher, Associate Director and Research Scientist with the MIT Center for Collective Intelligence. Laubacher discusses the climate colab, a project working to address climate change through citizen scientists and others who have an opportunity to submit proposals that will be reviewed by experts and winners will be given opportunities to contribute to briefings before the UN and US Congress
Scoop.it!
Scoop.it!
Google. Wikipedia. Threadless. All are exemplars of collective intelligence in action. Two of them are famous. The third is getting there.
Sabine Henrichfreise's curator insight,
March 19, 2014 3:21 AM
Collective Intelligence needs conditions to emerge. Gathering the whole system in one room to create new solutions in real time "pulls" collective intelligence.
Scoop.it!
An increasing number of organizations or communities today are harnessing the power of collective intelligence to tackle problems that are too big to be solved by themselves. While several prior studies have shown that collective intelligence can lead to high-quality output in the context of uncontroversial and verifiable information, it is unclear whether a production model based on collective intelligence will produce any desirable outcome when information is controversial, subjective, and unverifiable. We examine whether collective intelligence helps achieve a neutral point of view (NPOV) using data from Wikipedia’s articles on US politics. Our null hypothesis builds on Linus’ Law, often expressed as “Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow.” Our findings are consistent with a narrow interpretation of Linus’ Law, namely, a greater number of contributors to an article makes an article more neutral. No evidence supports a broad interpretation of Linus’ Law. Moreover, several empirical facts suggest the law does not shape many articles. The majority of articles receive little attention, and most articles change only mildly from their initial slant. Our study provides the first empirical evidence on the limit of collective intelligence. While many managers believe that they could improve their products by taking advantage of the wisdom of crowds, we show that in the case of Wikipedia, there are aspects such as NPOV that collective intelligence does not help achieve successfully.
|
