Wisdom and Crowds

Have been reading The Wisdom of Crowds on the tube this week, and most interesting and entertaining it is too (apologies to those who read it last year: like British Rail used to say, we're getting there). I'm reading it partly because I've read so much about it, and there's nothing more annoying than reading lots of people's opinions of something you haven't read (a bit like reading a film's reviews but never seeing the film), and partly because it could potentially offer some sort of theoretical or philosophical underpinning for what the Global Ideas Bank does.

Namely, that Surowiecki lists four important things which allow the wisdom of crowds to become apparent in problem-solving: independence, diversity, decentralisation and aggregation. Which would seem to virtually define us: no hierarchy (unless you count our editing), a democratic voting system, independence from outside pressure (judgements made on 'private information') and a diverse and wide base of people contributing. Perhaps tapping into this collective wisdom can help us truly create the democratic think-tank (see Dave Pollard's thoughts on this) to which we aspire....

Anyway, I will write again when I finish the book and, most crucially (I assume), the final chapter on democracy. Am enjoying it, particularly as I studied Gustave Le Bon's "The Crowd" at university, when it was taken as gospel by quite a few....

[One caveat: I'm sure this has been discussed before somewhere (Demos? Smart Mobs? Ah yes: in the Demos archives), but the Who Wants to be a Millionaire example still grates. Surowiecki quotes figures that state that the audience get 91 per cent of the questions right, while the phone a friend gets 65 per cent right. He takes these figures to deduce that the crowd is 'wiser'. He does say that this doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny, and adds that "it is possible, though not likely, that the audience were asked easier questions". To anyone who watches the programme regularly, it is almost ALWAYS the case that the audience are asked an earlier question and, therefore, an easier question. Perhaps the lifelines are generally used in a different order in the US. A more interesting comparison (and more accurate?) would be to compare the rates of success on the same level of question: how do both perform on £32,000 questions? The crowd may still 'win' and be wiser (and more consistent), but at least it would be a fairer comparison, no?....ok, pedantry over; loving the book]

Comments

[John Töns]

The crowd smarter in millionaire? Here in Australia a contestant got to 500,000 with 2 lifelines - phone a friend and the audience. He phoned his friend the friend did not know. He then decided to take the money. The compere asked why he didnt use his third lifeline and ask the audience. He looked around at the audience and simply smiled and said "Ill just take the cheque" Obviously he had not read about the Wisdom of the Crowd.