MassCollaboration - Revision history

BerkmanSysop: UTurn to 1267401600

2024-08-14T19:58:19Z

UTurn to 1267401600

← Older revision	Revision as of 19:58, 14 August 2024
(No difference)

Spider at 19:51, 19 November 2009

2009-11-19T19:51:51Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:51, 19 November 2009
Line 6:		Line 6:

	As a review of [http://andrewkeen.typepad.com/ Andrew Keen]'s book ''The Cult of the Amateur'' states:		As a review of [http://andrewkeen.typepad.com/ Andrew Keen]'s book ''The Cult of the Amateur'' states:
	<blockquote>Digital utopians have heralded the dawn of an era in which Web 2.0 â distinguished by a new generation of participatory sites like MySpace.com and YouTube.com, which emphasize user-generated content, social networking and interactive sharing â ushers in the democratization of the world: more information, more perspectives, more opinions, more everything, and most of it without filters or fees. Yet as the Silicon Valley entrepreneur Andrew Keen points out in his provocative new book, âThe Cult of the Amateur,â Web 2.0 has a dark side as well.~~</blockquote>~~<ref>Michiko Kakutani, Books of the Times: [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/29/books/29book.html "The Cult of the Amateur"], New York Times, June 29, 2007.</ref>		<blockquote>Digital utopians have heralded the dawn of an era in which Web 2.0 â distinguished by a new generation of participatory sites like MySpace.com and YouTube.com, which emphasize user-generated content, social networking and interactive sharing â ushers in the democratization of the world: more information, more perspectives, more opinions, more everything, and most of it without filters or fees. Yet as the Silicon Valley entrepreneur Andrew Keen points out in his provocative new book, âThe Cult of the Amateur,â Web 2.0 has a dark side as well.<ref>Michiko Kakutani, Books of the Times: [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/29/books/29book.html "The Cult of the Amateur"], New York Times, June 29, 2007.</ref></blockquote>

	At its most basic level, this theme questions whether we really believe that groups perform better than individuals, whether a group of average individuals is as good or better than an expert.		At its most basic level, this theme questions whether we really believe that groups perform better than individuals, whether a group of average individuals is as good or better than an expert.
Line 47:		Line 47:
	====Raising the Average - Bringing Down the Top?====		====Raising the Average - Bringing Down the Top?====

	~~http://wac~~.~~colostate~~.~~edu/journal/vol1/miller.pdf~~		Evidence on whether collaboration actually improves performance is mixed, and appears to depend not only on the nature of the work but also on the identity of the participants and size of the group. One major question to consider, though, is whether we are achieving new heights or just raising the average.
	~~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?~~		Robert Miller conducted a social psychology study on students in his course writing collaborative papers (note: there are significant structure biases inherent in this study) and concluded that on average the collaborative papers were better.<ref>Richard S. Miller, "[http://wac.colostate.edu/journal/vol1/miller.pdf Collaborative Writing in Social Psychology: An Experiment], 1 Writing Across the Curriculum 95-103 (1989).</ref> However, Miller noted himself that he could not determine whether the papers were better because the best student in each group did the majority of the work (and therefore lower grades from the worse students were eliminated) or whether the groups really generated absolutely better quality work.

	~~In the~~ study ~~above - stimulate creativity (self-reported~~)

	http://~~www.jstor.org.ezp-prod1.hul~~.~~harvard~~.edu/~~stable~~/284727?seq=2&Search=yes&term=Quality&term=presser&term=Collaboration&term=Research&list=hide&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoAdvancedSearch%3Fq0%3DCollaboration%2Band%2Bthe%2BQuality%2Bof%2BResearch%26f0%3Dti%26c0%3DAND%26q1%3Dpresser%26f1%3Dau%26c1%3DAND%26q2%3D%26f2%3Dall%26c2%3DAND%26q3%3D%26f3%3Dall%26wc%3Don%26Search%3DSearch%26sd%3D%26ed%3D%26la%3D%26jo%3D&item=1&ttl=1&returnArticleService=showArticle&resultsServiceName=doAdvancedResultsFromArticle

	*
	~~Collaboration and the Quality of Research~~
	* Stanley Presser
	* Social ~~Studies of Science, Vol. 10~~, ~~No.~~ 1 (~~Feb., 1980~~)~~, pp~~. ~~95-101~~
	* Published by: Sage Publications, ~~Ltd.~~

	~~study in science papers - show~~ that ~~groups less likely to produce really bad papers, but~~ not ~~any more likely to produce very good~~ papers ~~- suggest that collaboration eliminates~~ the ~~worst mistakes, but does not necessarily improve content byeond what an individual could do~~

			Does group work achieve new heights (better than the best person in the group could achieve) or does it simply eliminate the worst work? Miller's students reported that they felt the group work stimulated creativity and therefore led to better products.<ref>Id.</ref> However, a study on collaboration and the quality of scientific research found that groups were less likely to produce bad papers, but were not any more likely to produce good papers.<ref>Stanley Presser, "[http://www.jstor.org.ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/stable/284727?seq=2&Search=yes&term=Quality&term=presser&term=Collaboration&term=Research&list=hide&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoAdvancedSearch%3Fq0%3DCollaboration%2Band%2Bthe%2BQuality%2Bof%2BResearch%26f0%3Dti%26c0%3DAND%26q1%3Dpresser%26f1%3Dau%26c1%3DAND%26q2%3D%26f2%3Dall%26c2%3DAND%26q3%3D%26f3%3Dall%26wc%3Don%26Search%3DSearch%26sd%3D%26ed%3D%26la%3D%26jo%3D&item=1&ttl=1&returnArticleService=showArticle&resultsServiceName=doAdvancedResultsFromArticle Collaboration and the Quality of Research]," 10 Social Studies of Science 95-101 (Feb 1980).</ref> This study suggests that collaboration eliminates the worst mistakes but that it does not improve content beyond what an individual could do.

	====Size & Make-up of the Group====		====Size & Make-up of the Group====

	~~is there~~ a ~~maximum size~~ of the group ~~at which point benefits stop~~?		As noted above, the size and make-up of the group make a difference in the quality of collaboration. How do these questions come into play when we are dealing with mass collaboration (thousands and thousands of contributors) who are often anonymous so the group make-up isn't even known? At what group size do the complications and problems with collaboration outweigh the benefits?
	~~marginal~~ benefits?

	~~one study suggested~~ that there ~~were significant~~ benefits to collaborative work ~~- except in the~~ all-female groups ~~- could be a gender difference~~		One social psychology experiment determined that there are benefits to collaborative work, but they failed to show benefits for all-female groups.<ref>Nancy Vanderhey Samah & Richard De Lisi, "[http://www.jstor.org/pss/20152646 Peer Collaboration on a Nonverbal Reasoning Task by Urban, Minority Students]," 69 Journal of Experimental Education 5-21 (2000).</ref> It is not clear, however, whether this depends on the nature of the project worked on (e.g. does this still apply for female collaborations on female-dominated issues?). Also, mass collaboration often assumes that it will be mixed gender, because it is so large, but Wikipedia, for example, is estimated 80-90% male. How does this bias affect the quality and nature of the collaboration?
	http://www.jstor.org/pss/20152646
	~~though~~ mass collaboration assumes it will be mixed gender, ~~in reality~~ Wikipedia ~~at least averages~~ 80-90% male ~~(see~~ the ~~Wikipedia brief).~~

	=====References=====		=====References=====
	<references/>		<references/>

140.247.252.120 at 19:37, 19 November 2009

2009-11-19T19:37:19Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:37, 19 November 2009
Line 4:		Line 4:

	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?		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?

			As a review of [http://andrewkeen.typepad.com/ Andrew Keen]'s book ''The Cult of the Amateur'' states:
			<blockquote>Digital utopians have heralded the dawn of an era in which Web 2.0 â distinguished by a new generation of participatory sites like MySpace.com and YouTube.com, which emphasize user-generated content, social networking and interactive sharing â ushers in the democratization of the world: more information, more perspectives, more opinions, more everything, and most of it without filters or fees. Yet as the Silicon Valley entrepreneur Andrew Keen points out in his provocative new book, âThe Cult of the Amateur,â Web 2.0 has a dark side as well.</blockquote><ref>Michiko Kakutani, Books of the Times: [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/29/books/29book.html "The Cult of the Amateur"], New York Times, June 29, 2007.</ref>

			At its most basic level, this theme questions whether we really believe that groups perform better than individuals, whether a group of average individuals is as good or better than an expert.

	===Mob Mentality===		===Mob Mentality===

	~~Such a notion goes directly against our traditional ideas~~ of "[http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-mob-mentality.htm mob mentality]": a term used to refer to unique behavioral characteristics which emerge when people are in large groups.		Opponents of mass collaboration compare such projects to "[http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-mob-mentality.htm mob mentality]" -- a term used to refer to unique behavioral characteristics which emerge when people are in large groups -- or herd mind, or group think. Andrew Keen states dramatically that mass collaboration is nothing more than "ignorance meets egoism meets bad taste meets mob rule.â<ref>Id.</ref>

			Social psychologists have traditionally described mob mentality in terms of its negative attributes, noting the potential for peer pressure and group-think, for stifling creativity, lowering exceptional performers, and division into us v. them approaches to information.

			===Sharing Knowledge===

			Many developers, educators, and economists argue that mass collaboration is the wave of the future: that it is more efficient, achieves better results, and is more cost-effective than the use of experts. Is this true?

	~~Social psychologists describing mob mentality often emphasize~~ the potential for peer pressure ~~and~~ group-think,		While acknowledging the potential for negative outcomes (peer pressure, group-think and suppression of minority views), some researchers propose that technological solutions can overcome these challenges: e.g. have participants rank the novelty of postings in order to increase the salience of minority views.<ref>Gerry Stahl, "[http://ijcscl.org/_preprints/volume3_issue2/stahl_3_2.pdf The Strength of the Lone Wolf]," 3 International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 1-5 (2008).</ref>

	~~Obvious resistance by Encyclopedia Britannica~~ and ~~many academics~~ (~~see the Wikipedia brief on reception by academia~~)		Other researchers are even more optimistic, suggesting that the unique characteristics of COINs make these COINs un-susceptible to the mob mentality weaknesses. As a result, COINs have all the positive outcomes with none of the negative, giving COINs a competitive advantage<ref> Gloor, Peter A, Swarm Creativity: Competitive Advantage Through Collaborative Innovation Networks (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006).</ref> and presenting the best (or only) mechanism for addressing major global problems such as sustainability.<ref>Archer, Fei, & Petzel, [http://www.samhÃ¤llsplanering.se/fou/cuppsats.nsf/all/78d3802c456fd1d9c12575dd00472ba4/$file/NetworkedCollaborationFinal%20FINAL.pdf Collaboration for Sustainability in a Networked World], Thesis, Blekinge Institute of Technology (2009).</ref>

			In this optimistic camp, Tapscott and Williams argue in their book ''Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration is Changing Everything'' that mass collaboration is the future of business and a (nearly) pre-requisite for economic success in the internet age.<ref>Tapscott & Williams, [http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=DVomiOeBg_YC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=mass+collaboration&ots=45nHzVQdr9&sig=Lz-jNmCVXITWbShGvFqFPFwGooM#v=onepage&q=&f=false ''Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration is Changing Everything''] (2008).</ref>

	=== ~~or Shared Knowledge~~===		===Logistical Challenges===

	~~Many developers, educators and economists argue that mass~~ collaboration ~~is beneficial for society~~ and is in ~~fact~~ the ~~wave~~ of ~~the future~~.		Mass collaboration on the internet presents even more challenges than traditional "mob mentality" simply from the logistics of having a dispersed group of collaborators. Catherine Cramton identifies major challenges facing dispersed collaboration projects:
			*Failure to communicate and retain contextual information
			*Unevenly distributed information
			*Difficulty communicating the salience of information
			*Differences in speed of access to information
			*Difficulty interpreting the meaning of silence<ref>Catherine Durnell Cramton, "[http://www.jstor.org.ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/stable/3086013?&Search=yes&term=Quality&term=Collaboration&term=Research&list=hide&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3DCollaboration%2Band%2Bthe%2BQuality%2Bof%2BResearch%26x%3D0%26y%3D0%26wc%3Don&item=5&ttl=49407&returnArticleService=showArticle The Mutual Knowledge Problem and Its Consequences for Dispersed Collaboration]," 12 Organization Science 346-371(May-June 2001), [Available on JSTOR if link not work].</ref>

	~~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).<ref>Gerry Stahl~~, "~~[http://ijcscl~~.~~org/_preprints/volume3_issue2/stahl_3_2.pdf The Strength of the Lone Wolf],~~" ~~3 International Journal of Computer~~-Supported Collaborative Learning 1-5 (2008).</ref> Others believe the unique characteristics of COINs give those projects a competitive advantage<ref> Gloor, Peter A, Swarm Creativity: Competitive Advantage Through Collaborative Innovation Networks (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006).</ref> while still others suggest COINs are uniquely poised to address major global issues such as sustainability.<ref>Archer, Fei, & Petzel, [http://www.samhÃ¤llsplanering.se/fou/cuppsats.nsf/all/78d3802c456fd1d9c12575dd00472ba4/$file/NetworkedCollaborationFinal%20FINAL.pdf Collaboration for Sustainability in a Networked World], Thesis, Blekinge Institute of Technology (2009).</ref> 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.<ref>Tapscott & Williams, [http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=DVomiOeBg_YC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=mass+collaboration&ots=45nHzVQdr9&sig=Lz-jNmCVXITWbShGvFqFPFwGooM#v=onepage&q=&f=false ''Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration is Changing Everything''] (2008).</ref>		How can these problems be addressed on the internet? Cramton notes that dispersed groups, on the basis of physical distance, often break down into "us v. them" mentality - does anonymity address or exacerbate this issue?

	===Related Questions===		===Related Questions===

	====~~Universal Access~~ v. ~~Universal Involvement~~====		====Popular v. Right====

	~~Wikipedia users appear to conflate the issues of having~~ information ~~freely accessible by all~~ and ~~the issue of allowing everyone to contribute~~ information.		Is our information base shifting away from what is correct and towards what is popular? For example, Google has become a popular starting-point for information, but Google lists results in order based not on what is most correct but rather on what is most popular. How does this affect our knowledge base? How do we define "correct" - does it mean widely accepted, proven through scientific inquiry (in which case, Creationists would question what "proven" means) or something else? If "widely accepted", who votes? Only the expert community? Or anyone?

	~~Still~~, ~~there are major~~ issues ~~underlying about equality~~.		Consider technological solutions that are devloping, like [http://disputefinder.cs.berkeley.edu/ DisputeFinder] that can identify debated issues and present an alternative point of view, so the reader is at least informed on the controversy.

	====Raising the Average - Bringing Down the Top?====		====Raising the Average - Bringing Down the Top?====
Line 35:		Line 52:
	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?		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		In the study above - stimulate creativity (self-reported)

			http://www.jstor.org.ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/stable/284727?seq=2&Search=yes&term=Quality&term=presser&term=Collaboration&term=Research&list=hide&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoAdvancedSearch%3Fq0%3DCollaboration%2Band%2Bthe%2BQuality%2Bof%2BResearch%26f0%3Dti%26c0%3DAND%26q1%3Dpresser%26f1%3Dau%26c1%3DAND%26q2%3D%26f2%3Dall%26c2%3DAND%26q3%3D%26f3%3Dall%26wc%3Don%26Search%3DSearch%26sd%3D%26ed%3D%26la%3D%26jo%3D&item=1&ttl=1&returnArticleService=showArticle&resultsServiceName=doAdvancedResultsFromArticle

			*
			Collaboration and the Quality of Research
			* Stanley Presser
			* Social Studies of Science, Vol. 10, No. 1 (Feb., 1980), pp. 95-101
			* Published by: Sage Publications, Ltd.

			study in science papers - show that groups less likely to produce really bad papers, but not any more likely to produce very good papers - suggest that collaboration eliminates the worst mistakes, but does not necessarily improve content byeond what an individual could do

	====Size of the Group====		====Size & Make-up of the Group====

	is there a maximum size of the group at which point benefits stop?		is there a maximum size of the group at which point benefits stop?
	marginal benefits?		marginal benefits?

			one study suggested that there were significant benefits to collaborative work - except in the all-female groups - could be a gender difference
			http://www.jstor.org/pss/20152646
			though mass collaboration assumes it will be mixed gender, in reality Wikipedia at least averages 80-90% male (see the Wikipedia brief).

	=====References=====		=====References=====
	<references/>		<references/>

140.247.252.120 at 18:52, 19 November 2009

2009-11-19T18:52:30Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:52, 19 November 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~'''~~Issue Definition~~'''~~		===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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_collaboration 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).		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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_collaboration 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).
Line 5:		Line 5:
	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?		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~~'''~~		===Mob Mentality===

	Such a notion goes directly against our traditional ideas of "[http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-mob-mentality.htm mob mentality]": a term used to refer to unique behavioral characteristics which emerge when people are in large groups.		Such a notion goes directly against our traditional ideas of "[http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-mob-mentality.htm mob mentality]": a term used to refer to unique behavioral characteristics which emerge when people are in large groups.
Line 14:		Line 14:


	~~'''~~Shared Knowledge~~'''~~		=== or Shared Knowledge===

	Many developers, educators and economists argue that mass collaboration is beneficial for society and is in fact the wave of the future.		Many developers, educators and economists argue that mass collaboration is beneficial for society and is in fact the wave of the future.
Line 20:		Line 20:
	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).<ref>Gerry Stahl, "[http://ijcscl.org/_preprints/volume3_issue2/stahl_3_2.pdf The Strength of the Lone Wolf]," 3 International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 1-5 (2008).</ref> Others believe the unique characteristics of COINs give those projects a competitive advantage<ref> Gloor, Peter A, Swarm Creativity: Competitive Advantage Through Collaborative Innovation Networks (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006).</ref> while still others suggest COINs are uniquely poised to address major global issues such as sustainability.<ref>Archer, Fei, & Petzel, [http://www.samhÃ¤llsplanering.se/fou/cuppsats.nsf/all/78d3802c456fd1d9c12575dd00472ba4/$file/NetworkedCollaborationFinal%20FINAL.pdf Collaboration for Sustainability in a Networked World], Thesis, Blekinge Institute of Technology (2009).</ref> In their book ''Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration is Changing Everything'', Tapscott & Williams argue that mass collaboration is the future of business and markets and almost a pre-requisite for economic success in the internet age.<ref>Tapscott & Williams, [http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=DVomiOeBg_YC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=mass+collaboration&ots=45nHzVQdr9&sig=Lz-jNmCVXITWbShGvFqFPFwGooM#v=onepage&q=&f=false ''Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration is Changing Everything''] (2008).</ref>		but some authors believe that these negative outcomes can be overcome with guidance (e.g. by having participants rate the novelty of postings in order to increase the salience of minority views).<ref>Gerry Stahl, "[http://ijcscl.org/_preprints/volume3_issue2/stahl_3_2.pdf The Strength of the Lone Wolf]," 3 International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 1-5 (2008).</ref> Others believe the unique characteristics of COINs give those projects a competitive advantage<ref> Gloor, Peter A, Swarm Creativity: Competitive Advantage Through Collaborative Innovation Networks (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006).</ref> while still others suggest COINs are uniquely poised to address major global issues such as sustainability.<ref>Archer, Fei, & Petzel, [http://www.samhÃ¤llsplanering.se/fou/cuppsats.nsf/all/78d3802c456fd1d9c12575dd00472ba4/$file/NetworkedCollaborationFinal%20FINAL.pdf Collaboration for Sustainability in a Networked World], Thesis, Blekinge Institute of Technology (2009).</ref> 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.<ref>Tapscott & Williams, [http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=DVomiOeBg_YC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=mass+collaboration&ots=45nHzVQdr9&sig=Lz-jNmCVXITWbShGvFqFPFwGooM#v=onepage&q=&f=false ''Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration is Changing Everything''] (2008).</ref>

	~~'''~~Universal Access v. Universal Involvement~~'''~~		===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.		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.		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=====		=====References=====
	<references/>		<references/>

140.247.252.120 at 18:45, 19 November 2009

2009-11-19T18:45:36Z

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-Many new online initiatives, including Wikipedia, Couchsurfing, Twitter, and Mechanical Turk, all rely on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_collaboration mass collaboration] - often termed Collaborative Innovation Networks (COINS).  The success or failure of such COIN projects depends to a large extent on the number of people participating, and as a result the projects often face massive challenges motivating participants and prevent bad actors (see the cross-cutting theme on motivation).
+'''Issue Definition'''
-More interestingly, all of these projects are based on the premise that the more people involved the better quality the product.  Such a notion goes directly against our traditional ideas of "[http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-mob-mentality.htm mob mentality]": a term used to refer to unique behavioral characteristics which emerge when people are in large groups.
+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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_collaboration 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).
-Social psychologists describing mob mentality often emphasize the potential for peer pressure and group-think, 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).<ref>Gerry Stahl, "[http://ijcscl.org/_preprints/volume3_issue2/stahl_3_2.pdf The Strength of the Lone Wolf]," 3 International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 1-5 (2008).</ref> Others believe the unique characteristics of COINs give those projects a competitive advantage<ref> Gloor, Peter A, Swarm Creativity: Competitive Advantage Through Collaborative Innovation Networks (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006).</ref> while still others suggest COINs are uniquely poised to address major global issues such as sustainability.<ref>Archer, Fei, & Petzel, [http://www.samhÃ¤llsplanering.se/fou/cuppsats.nsf/all/78d3802c456fd1d9c12575dd00472ba4/$file/NetworkedCollaborationFinal%20FINAL.pdf Collaboration for Sustainability in a Networked World], Thesis, Blekinge Institute of Technology (2009).</ref>  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.<ref>Tapscott & Williams, [http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=DVomiOeBg_YC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=mass+collaboration&ots=45nHzVQdr9&sig=Lz-jNmCVXITWbShGvFqFPFwGooM#v=onepage&q=&f=false ''Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration is Changing Everything''] (2008).</ref>
+'''Mob Mentality'''
 =====References=====
 <references/>

Spider at 16:58, 19 November 2009

2009-11-19T16:58:49Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:58, 19 November 2009
Line 3:		Line 3:
	More interestingly, all of these projects are based on the premise that the more people involved the better quality the product. Such a notion goes directly against our traditional ideas of "[http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-mob-mentality.htm mob mentality]": a term used to refer to unique behavioral characteristics which emerge when people are in large groups.		More interestingly, all of these projects are based on the premise that the more people involved the better quality the product. Such a notion goes directly against our traditional ideas of "[http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-mob-mentality.htm 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, 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).<ref>Gerry Stahl, "[http://ijcscl.org/_preprints/volume3_issue2/stahl_3_2.pdf The Strength of the Lone Wolf]," 3 International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 1-5 (2008).</ref> Others believe the unique characteristics of COINs give those projects a competitive advantage<ref> Gloor, Peter A, Swarm Creativity: Competitive Advantage Through Collaborative Innovation Networks (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006).</ref> while still others suggest COINs are uniquely poised to address major global issues such as sustainability.<ref>Archer, Fei, & Petzel, [http://www.samhÃ¤llsplanering.se/fou/cuppsats.nsf/all/78d3802c456fd1d9c12575dd00472ba4/$file/NetworkedCollaborationFinal%20FINAL.pdf Collaboration for Sustainability in a Networked World], Thesis, Blekinge Institute of Technology (2009).</ref>		Social psychologists describing mob mentality often emphasize the potential for peer pressure and group-think, but some authors believe that these negative outcomes can be overcome with guidance (e.g. by having participants rate the novelty of postings in order to increase the salience of minority views).<ref>Gerry Stahl, "[http://ijcscl.org/_preprints/volume3_issue2/stahl_3_2.pdf The Strength of the Lone Wolf]," 3 International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 1-5 (2008).</ref> Others believe the unique characteristics of COINs give those projects a competitive advantage<ref> Gloor, Peter A, Swarm Creativity: Competitive Advantage Through Collaborative Innovation Networks (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006).</ref> while still others suggest COINs are uniquely poised to address major global issues such as sustainability.<ref>Archer, Fei, & Petzel, [http://www.samhÃ¤llsplanering.se/fou/cuppsats.nsf/all/78d3802c456fd1d9c12575dd00472ba4/$file/NetworkedCollaborationFinal%20FINAL.pdf Collaboration for Sustainability in a Networked World], Thesis, Blekinge Institute of Technology (2009).</ref> 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.<ref>Tapscott & Williams, [http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=DVomiOeBg_YC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=mass+collaboration&ots=45nHzVQdr9&sig=Lz-jNmCVXITWbShGvFqFPFwGooM#v=onepage&q=&f=false ''Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration is Changing Everything''] (2008).</ref>

	=====References=====		=====References=====
	<references/>		<references/>

Spider at 16:54, 19 November 2009

2009-11-19T16:54:14Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:54, 19 November 2009
Line 3:		Line 3:
	More interestingly, all of these projects are based on the premise that the more people involved the better quality the product. Such a notion goes directly against our traditional ideas of "[http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-mob-mentality.htm mob mentality]": a term used to refer to unique behavioral characteristics which emerge when people are in large groups.		More interestingly, all of these projects are based on the premise that the more people involved the better quality the product. Such a notion goes directly against our traditional ideas of "[http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-mob-mentality.htm 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, 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).<ref>Gerry Stahl, "[http://ijcscl.org/_preprints/volume3_issue2/stahl_3_2.pdf The Strength of the Lone Wolf]," 3 International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 1-5 (2008).</ref> Others believe the unique characteristics of COINs give those projects a competitive advantage<ref> Gloor, Peter A, Swarm Creativity: Competitive Advantage Through Collaborative Innovation Networks (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006).</ref> while still others suggest COINs are uniquely poised to address major global issues such as sustainability.<ref>Archer, Fei, & Petzel, Collaboration for Sustainability in a Networked World, Thesis, Blekinge Institute of Technology (2009).</ref>		Social psychologists describing mob mentality often emphasize the potential for peer pressure and group-think, 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).<ref>Gerry Stahl, "[http://ijcscl.org/_preprints/volume3_issue2/stahl_3_2.pdf The Strength of the Lone Wolf]," 3 International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 1-5 (2008).</ref> Others believe the unique characteristics of COINs give those projects a competitive advantage<ref> Gloor, Peter A, Swarm Creativity: Competitive Advantage Through Collaborative Innovation Networks (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006).</ref> while still others suggest COINs are uniquely poised to address major global issues such as sustainability.<ref>Archer, Fei, & Petzel, [http://www.samhÃ¤llsplanering.se/fou/cuppsats.nsf/all/78d3802c456fd1d9c12575dd00472ba4/$file/NetworkedCollaborationFinal%20FINAL.pdf Collaboration for Sustainability in a Networked World], Thesis, Blekinge Institute of Technology (2009).</ref>

	=====References=====		=====References=====
	<references/>		<references/>

Spider at 16:53, 19 November 2009

2009-11-19T16:53:35Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:53, 19 November 2009
Line 5:		Line 5:
	Social psychologists describing mob mentality often emphasize the potential for peer pressure and group-think, 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).<ref>Gerry Stahl, "[http://ijcscl.org/_preprints/volume3_issue2/stahl_3_2.pdf The Strength of the Lone Wolf]," 3 International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 1-5 (2008).</ref> Others believe the unique characteristics of COINs give those projects a competitive advantage<ref> Gloor, Peter A, Swarm Creativity: Competitive Advantage Through Collaborative Innovation Networks (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006).</ref> while still others suggest COINs are uniquely poised to address major global issues such as sustainability.<ref>Archer, Fei, & Petzel, Collaboration for Sustainability in a Networked World, Thesis, Blekinge Institute of Technology (2009).</ref>		Social psychologists describing mob mentality often emphasize the potential for peer pressure and group-think, 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).<ref>Gerry Stahl, "[http://ijcscl.org/_preprints/volume3_issue2/stahl_3_2.pdf The Strength of the Lone Wolf]," 3 International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 1-5 (2008).</ref> Others believe the unique characteristics of COINs give those projects a competitive advantage<ref> Gloor, Peter A, Swarm Creativity: Competitive Advantage Through Collaborative Innovation Networks (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006).</ref> while still others suggest COINs are uniquely poised to address major global issues such as sustainability.<ref>Archer, Fei, & Petzel, Collaboration for Sustainability in a Networked World, Thesis, Blekinge Institute of Technology (2009).</ref>

	~~{{Reflist}}~~		=====References=====
			<references/>

Spider at 16:52, 19 November 2009

2009-11-19T16:52:52Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:52, 19 November 2009
Line 5:		Line 5:
	Social psychologists describing mob mentality often emphasize the potential for peer pressure and group-think, 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).<ref>Gerry Stahl, "[http://ijcscl.org/_preprints/volume3_issue2/stahl_3_2.pdf The Strength of the Lone Wolf]," 3 International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 1-5 (2008).</ref> Others believe the unique characteristics of COINs give those projects a competitive advantage<ref> Gloor, Peter A, Swarm Creativity: Competitive Advantage Through Collaborative Innovation Networks (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006).</ref> while still others suggest COINs are uniquely poised to address major global issues such as sustainability.<ref>Archer, Fei, & Petzel, Collaboration for Sustainability in a Networked World, Thesis, Blekinge Institute of Technology (2009).</ref>		Social psychologists describing mob mentality often emphasize the potential for peer pressure and group-think, 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).<ref>Gerry Stahl, "[http://ijcscl.org/_preprints/volume3_issue2/stahl_3_2.pdf The Strength of the Lone Wolf]," 3 International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 1-5 (2008).</ref> Others believe the unique characteristics of COINs give those projects a competitive advantage<ref> Gloor, Peter A, Swarm Creativity: Competitive Advantage Through Collaborative Innovation Networks (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006).</ref> while still others suggest COINs are uniquely poised to address major global issues such as sustainability.<ref>Archer, Fei, & Petzel, Collaboration for Sustainability in a Networked World, Thesis, Blekinge Institute of Technology (2009).</ref>

	~~<references/>~~		{{Reflist}}

140.247.253.64 at 16:52, 19 November 2009

2009-11-19T16:52:25Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:52, 19 November 2009
Line 5:		Line 5:
	Social psychologists describing mob mentality often emphasize the potential for peer pressure and group-think, 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).<ref>Gerry Stahl, "[http://ijcscl.org/_preprints/volume3_issue2/stahl_3_2.pdf The Strength of the Lone Wolf]," 3 International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 1-5 (2008).</ref> Others believe the unique characteristics of COINs give those projects a competitive advantage<ref> Gloor, Peter A, Swarm Creativity: Competitive Advantage Through Collaborative Innovation Networks (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006).</ref> while still others suggest COINs are uniquely poised to address major global issues such as sustainability.<ref>Archer, Fei, & Petzel, Collaboration for Sustainability in a Networked World, Thesis, Blekinge Institute of Technology (2009).</ref>		Social psychologists describing mob mentality often emphasize the potential for peer pressure and group-think, 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).<ref>Gerry Stahl, "[http://ijcscl.org/_preprints/volume3_issue2/stahl_3_2.pdf The Strength of the Lone Wolf]," 3 International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 1-5 (2008).</ref> Others believe the unique characteristics of COINs give those projects a competitive advantage<ref> Gloor, Peter A, Swarm Creativity: Competitive Advantage Through Collaborative Innovation Networks (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006).</ref> while still others suggest COINs are uniquely poised to address major global issues such as sustainability.<ref>Archer, Fei, & Petzel, Collaboration for Sustainability in a Networked World, Thesis, Blekinge Institute of Technology (2009).</ref>

	~~==== References ====~~		<references/>