Comments on: Bugs of collective intelligence: why the best ideas aren’t selected? http://3form.org/blog/?p=37 3form weblog Mon, 06 Sep 2010 13:12:35 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: Social computation and creativity » Blog Archive » Comparison of free knowledge markets http://3form.org/blog/?p=37&cpage=1#comment-14957 Social computation and creativity » Blog Archive » Comparison of free knowledge markets Mon, 17 Sep 2007 02:24:08 +0000 http://3form.org/blog/?p=37#comment-14957 [...] Korean Naver played a key role in popularizing the concept of knowledge market. Naver, however, was not the first knowledge market in Korea. DBDiC offered analogous service as early as Oct 2000. DBDiC presumably developed its technique independently from 3form, but shares similar architecture, including general structure and credit assignment system. There are two key differences of DBDiC technique from the one of 3form: (1) the identity of the author of the solution biases evaluation of the solution, i.e. high status of the author can lead to accepting the inferior answer as the best despite the presence of the better answer contributed by a person with lower status, (2) answers that are positioned earlier in the list are more likely to be read, chosen, and evaluated, i.e. a great answer later in the list can easily be overlooked. These differences resulted in subjective and position specific biases in solution evaluation system (see also my previous post .Bugs of collective intelligence: why the best ideas aren’t selected?). I could speculate that if DBDiC designers were more familiar with 3form service, they could have avoided those undesirable biases that later propagated into every knowledge market platform created subsequently. [...] [...] Korean Naver played a key role in popularizing the concept of knowledge market. Naver, however, was not the first knowledge market in Korea. DBDiC offered analogous service as early as Oct 2000. DBDiC presumably developed its technique independently from 3form, but shares similar architecture, including general structure and credit assignment system. There are two key differences of DBDiC technique from the one of 3form: (1) the identity of the author of the solution biases evaluation of the solution, i.e. high status of the author can lead to accepting the inferior answer as the best despite the presence of the better answer contributed by a person with lower status, (2) answers that are positioned earlier in the list are more likely to be read, chosen, and evaluated, i.e. a great answer later in the list can easily be overlooked. These differences resulted in subjective and position specific biases in solution evaluation system (see also my previous post .Bugs of collective intelligence: why the best ideas aren’t selected?). I could speculate that if DBDiC designers were more familiar with 3form service, they could have avoided those undesirable biases that later propagated into every knowledge market platform created subsequently. [...]

]]> By: mike http://3form.org/blog/?p=37&cpage=1#comment-13907 mike Thu, 06 Sep 2007 18:03:07 +0000 http://3form.org/blog/?p=37#comment-13907 Interesting concepts & info - Thanks! Completely FWIW... Though probably contrary to purest aims of Collective Intelligence, I wonder if the inclusion of social engineering &/or behavioral psychology into the design & implementations might not improve many (most?) aspects of performance? In what seems at the moment a collection of ironies... I would think that the main goal of Collective Intelligence as a whole would be to overcome the burdens and inefficiencies of societal structures as relates to creative, best solutions. Yet the very behaviors/structures Collective Intelligence would overcome persist, perhaps insist on imposing the same limitations on Collective Intelligence efforts themselves. A partial solution might be found based on frankly tricking (the polite word would be encouraging) those involved to participate as desired, in a way more free of constraints, while maybe adding some sort of anti-biasing for tweaking. Implementing such a solution would of course likely be analogous to jabbing the back end of an angry bull with a hot poker should it become known. And you'd be introducing something almost like a self-destruct mechanism, providing the means for an over-riding bias to be purposely introduced -- a lot of energy would have to be spent designing safeguards to preserve overall integrity. Interesting concepts & info - Thanks!

Completely FWIW… Though probably contrary to purest aims of Collective Intelligence, I wonder if the inclusion of social engineering &/or behavioral psychology into the design & implementations might not improve many (most?) aspects of performance? In what seems at the moment a collection of ironies…

I would think that the main goal of Collective Intelligence as a whole would be to overcome the burdens and inefficiencies of societal structures as relates to creative, best solutions. Yet the very behaviors/structures Collective Intelligence would overcome persist, perhaps insist on imposing the same limitations on Collective Intelligence efforts themselves. A partial solution might be found based on frankly tricking (the polite word would be encouraging) those involved to participate as desired, in a way more free of constraints, while maybe adding some sort of anti-biasing for tweaking.

Implementing such a solution would of course likely be analogous to jabbing the back end of an angry bull with a hot poker should it become known. And you’d be introducing something almost like a self-destruct mechanism, providing the means for an over-riding bias to be purposely introduced — a lot of energy would have to be spent designing safeguards to preserve overall integrity.

]]> By: Social computation and creativity » Blog Archive » MIT Handbook of Collective Intelligence opens up http://3form.org/blog/?p=37&cpage=1#comment-13765 Social computation and creativity » Blog Archive » MIT Handbook of Collective Intelligence opens up Wed, 05 Sep 2007 21:10:15 +0000 http://3form.org/blog/?p=37#comment-13765 [...] This returns us back to the topic that I discussed in my previous post Bugs of collective intelligence: why the best ideas aren’t selected?. The common failures of collective intelligence clearly suggest that it is not a phenomenon that automatically emerges once someone set up a shared space like wiki and brought it to the attention of many people. It requires understanding of the dynamic of this systems to make them work, and this is especially true with wikis. There is still serious research to be done on the factors that make different collective intelligence methods effective. It is beyond the scope of this post, but here I want to give some hints into why some wiki-based projects perform poorly. [...] [...] This returns us back to the topic that I discussed in my previous post Bugs of collective intelligence: why the best ideas aren’t selected?. The common failures of collective intelligence clearly suggest that it is not a phenomenon that automatically emerges once someone set up a shared space like wiki and brought it to the attention of many people. It requires understanding of the dynamic of this systems to make them work, and this is especially true with wikis. There is still serious research to be done on the factors that make different collective intelligence methods effective. It is beyond the scope of this post, but here I want to give some hints into why some wiki-based projects perform poorly. [...]

]]> By: mouser http://3form.org/blog/?p=37&cpage=1#comment-12054 mouser Wed, 22 Aug 2007 02:36:06 +0000 http://3form.org/blog/?p=37#comment-12054 my favorite blog post of yours yet -- excellent. my favorite blog post of yours yet — excellent.

]]>