MassCollaboration
Issue Definition
The development of and increasingly pervasive access to the internet has permitted mass collaboration on a scale not previously possible. Projects such as Wikipedia, Couchsurfing, Mechanical Turk, MySpace, Facebook, all rely on mass collaboration and are therefore frequently called Collaborative Innovation Networks (COINs). The success or failure of such COIN projects depends to great extent on the number of participants. As a result, project coordinators face massive challenges motivating good participants and preventing bad actors (see the cross-cutting theme on motivation).
On a more basic level, COINs are based on a shared premise that mass collaboration results in improved products: the more people involved the better quality the product. Is this a valid premise? Do we believe that using mass collaboration is as good or better than using experts? What knowledge / benefits do we lose by shifting towards mass collaboration? What do we gain?
Mob Mentality
Such a notion goes directly against our traditional ideas of "mob mentality": a term used to refer to unique behavioral characteristics which emerge when people are in large groups.
Social psychologists describing mob mentality often emphasize the potential for peer pressure and group-think,
Obvious resistance by Encyclopedia Britannica and many academics (see the Wikipedia brief on reception by academia)
Many developers, educators and economists argue that mass collaboration is beneficial for society and is in fact the wave of the future.
but some authors believe that these negative outcomes can be overcome with guidance (e.g. by having participants rate the novelty of postings in order to increase the salience of minority views).[1] Others believe the unique characteristics of COINs give those projects a competitive advantage[2] while still others suggest COINs are uniquely poised to address major global issues such as sustainability.[3] In their book Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration is Changing Everything, Tapscott & Williams argue that mass collaboration is the future of business and markets and almost a pre-requisite for economic success in the internet age.[4]
Related Questions
Universal Access v. Universal Involvement
Wikipedia users appear to conflate the issues of having information freely accessible by all and the issue of allowing everyone to contribute information.
Still, there are major issues underlying about equality.
Raising the Average - Bringing Down the Top?
http://wac.colostate.edu/journal/vol1/miller.pdf better papers - but question this?
does it make sense that collaboration will become better than any one expert? or does it make more sense that the best in the group will do the same - and either bring up his/her group members or be brought down by them - do we really get better results?
In the study above - stimulate creativity
Size of the Group
is there a maximum size of the group at which point benefits stop? marginal benefits?
References
- ↑ Gerry Stahl, "The Strength of the Lone Wolf," 3 International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 1-5 (2008).
- ↑ Gloor, Peter A, Swarm Creativity: Competitive Advantage Through Collaborative Innovation Networks (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006).
- ↑ Archer, Fei, & Petzel, Collaboration for Sustainability in a Networked World, Thesis, Blekinge Institute of Technology (2009).
- ↑ Tapscott & Williams, Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration is Changing Everything (2008).