I think the strongest argument you can post about the wisdom of crowds is the fact that they are made up of individuals (The selfishness attribute Derek Powazek mentions in his article.)Each person formulates their own opinion, thus leveling out others. We now become reliant on a contingent of people rather than a couple of experts. This is one reason to consider WOC's.
When we think of experts, we think of people that know a great deal on the subject (obviously). What we don't know is how they personally feel on the subject. Moreover, something or someone can sway their reasoning. This is where the wisdom of crowds schema nullifies that attribute. It is possible to come out with a fair outcome.
Of course the masses are not without influence, but spread over thousands of votes rather than a couple yields a truer result. Each apex should counteract the other. Thus giving a result of what people are looking for.
I'm fascinated by the concept of wisdom of crowds. What interests me is the structure to define the opinions. And what effect the democritzation could have on individual bits of information.
ReplyDelete