Comments on: On social software and consensus http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2006/09/10/on-social-software-and-consensus/ a blog about information Fri, 19 Mar 2010 09:20:53 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: mind this - by Lars Plougmann http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2006/09/10/on-social-software-and-consensus/comment-page-1/#comment-30891 mind this - by Lars Plougmann Tue, 12 Dec 2006 10:56:33 +0000 http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2006/09/10/on-social-software-and-consensus/#comment-30891 <strong>Counterpoint: email vs. collaboration technologies...</strong> In an article called The Big Match, Michael Sampson joins the ongoing discussion about the effectiveness of email versus other collaboration tools (I compiled a summary of the discussion about a month ago). As a counterpoint to my 10-to-1 list... Counterpoint: email vs. collaboration technologies…

In an article called The Big Match, Michael Sampson joins the ongoing discussion about the effectiveness of email versus other collaboration tools (I compiled a summary of the discussion about a month ago). As a counterpoint to my 10-to-1 list…

]]> By: What causes rants against teamwork and collaboration? « Stronger Teams Blog http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2006/09/10/on-social-software-and-consensus/comment-page-1/#comment-8243 What causes rants against teamwork and collaboration? « Stronger Teams Blog Tue, 19 Sep 2006 13:43:12 +0000 http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2006/09/10/on-social-software-and-consensus/#comment-8243 [...] However, I felt compelled to post my concerns about the article because, as JP Rangaswami explained, “This kind of thinking will gain currency.” Rather than posting immediately, I decided to wait several days to conduct a (non-scientific) experiment to watch what kind of traction Freedman’s ideas would get. I wanted to see how the crowd in the blogosphere would react; whether a group would coalesce around Freedman’s arguments; whether differing opinions would emerge. I refrained from blogging my own views to remain an outside, although not completely unbiased, observer. [...] [...] However, I felt compelled to post my concerns about the article because, as JP Rangaswami explained, “This kind of thinking will gain currency.” Rather than posting immediately, I decided to wait several days to conduct a (non-scientific) experiment to watch what kind of traction Freedman’s ideas would get. I wanted to see how the crowd in the blogosphere would react; whether a group would coalesce around Freedman’s arguments; whether differing opinions would emerge. I refrained from blogging my own views to remain an outside, although not completely unbiased, observer. [...]

]]> By: [Mauvaises pensées d’un consultant] :: Un article iconoclaste [en] :: September :: 2006 http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2006/09/10/on-social-software-and-consensus/comment-page-1/#comment-7668 [Mauvaises pensées d’un consultant] :: Un article iconoclaste [en] :: September :: 2006 Wed, 13 Sep 2006 12:19:08 +0000 http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2006/09/10/on-social-software-and-consensus/#comment-7668 [...] Un article très affirmatif (via -comme souvent- "Confused of Calcutta") sur le thème "désolé, le collectif, ça marche pas…"/ C’est ici, et ça va demander un bon peu de travail pour répondre, mais je m’y mets (à suivre). [...] [...] Un article très affirmatif (via -comme souvent- "Confused of Calcutta") sur le thème "désolé, le collectif, ça marche pas…"/ C’est ici, et ça va demander un bon peu de travail pour répondre, mais je m’y mets (à suivre). [...]

]]> By: Confused Of Calcutta » Blog Archive » More on social software and consensus http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2006/09/10/on-social-software-and-consensus/comment-page-1/#comment-7630 Confused Of Calcutta » Blog Archive » More on social software and consensus Tue, 12 Sep 2006 21:13:56 +0000 http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2006/09/10/on-social-software-and-consensus/#comment-7630 [...] A few days ago I wrote about David Freedman’s piece in Inc magazine, where he,  in Carr-like fashion, suggested that collaboration doesn’t work, that crowds don’t have wisdom, that workgroups fail most often when they’re faced with making a decision. I took some issue with the statements. I then suggested a number of false or weak forms of consensus, seeking to make the point that real consensus requires trust and commitment, and showing how social software could help us achieve this. [...] [...] A few days ago I wrote about David Freedman’s piece in Inc magazine, where he,  in Carr-like fashion, suggested that collaboration doesn’t work, that crowds don’t have wisdom, that workgroups fail most often when they’re faced with making a decision. I took some issue with the statements. I then suggested a number of false or weak forms of consensus, seeking to make the point that real consensus requires trust and commitment, and showing how social software could help us achieve this. [...]

]]> By: Jason Kolb http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2006/09/10/on-social-software-and-consensus/comment-page-1/#comment-7532 Jason Kolb Tue, 12 Sep 2006 12:54:13 +0000 http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2006/09/10/on-social-software-and-consensus/#comment-7532 I've always considered the "wisdom of crowds" to be more related to aggregated knowledge, and less to the ability of crowds to create something meaningful like a Wikipedia article. For example, on the show "Who Wants to be a Millionaire", I believe the stat is that the crowd was correct about 75% of the time, which makes it by far the best way to make a decision. However, try to get that same crowd to write an article and it would be all over the map. I’ve always considered the “wisdom of crowds” to be more related to aggregated knowledge, and less to the ability of crowds to create something meaningful like a Wikipedia article. For example, on the show “Who Wants to be a Millionaire”, I believe the stat is that the crowd was correct about 75% of the time, which makes it by far the best way to make a decision. However, try to get that same crowd to write an article and it would be all over the map.

]]> By: John Dodds http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2006/09/10/on-social-software-and-consensus/comment-page-1/#comment-7506 John Dodds Tue, 12 Sep 2006 09:09:28 +0000 http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2006/09/10/on-social-software-and-consensus/#comment-7506 No argument from me when it comes to the potential of social software to solve "crosswords" because they are characterised by having a definitively correct solution. Thinking off the top of my head, however, I wonder if other problems that require original creativity (for want of a better expression) may not be so susceptible to large-group solutions. I'm sure you'll have a riposte to that. Maybe I'm just a little jaundiced by the frequent propagation of mythical opinions and "expertise" across the blogosphere where ranking hierarchies clearly lend excessive authority at this stage of the blogosphere's development to some who blogged early. Groupthink exists within social software too. No argument from me when it comes to the potential of social software to solve “crosswords” because they are characterised by having a definitively correct solution. Thinking off the top of my head, however, I wonder if other problems that require original creativity (for want of a better expression) may not be so susceptible to large-group solutions. I’m sure you’ll have a riposte to that.

Maybe I’m just a little jaundiced by the frequent propagation of mythical opinions and “expertise” across the blogosphere where ranking hierarchies clearly lend excessive authority at this stage of the blogosphere’s development to some who blogged early. Groupthink exists within social software too.

]]> By: Wisdom of crowds — except at work? » Mathew Ingram: mathewingram.com/work http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2006/09/10/on-social-software-and-consensus/comment-page-1/#comment-7485 Wisdom of crowds — except at work? » Mathew Ingram: mathewingram.com/work Tue, 12 Sep 2006 03:28:47 +0000 http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2006/09/10/on-social-software-and-consensus/#comment-7485 [...] James Surowiecki has written about The Wisdom of Crowds, and many Web 2.0 services such as Wikipedia are based on the idea of “crowdsourcing,” as Wired magazine put it — aggregating contributions from many people to produce some kind of definitive result. But does that kind of thing work in the enterprise? J.P. Rangaswami, a former economist and financial journalist who blogs at Confused of Calcutta, has a great post in response to a recent opinion piece in Inc. magazine that argues it does not. [...] [...] James Surowiecki has written about The Wisdom of Crowds, and many Web 2.0 services such as Wikipedia are based on the idea of “crowdsourcing,” as Wired magazine put it — aggregating contributions from many people to produce some kind of definitive result. But does that kind of thing work in the enterprise? J.P. Rangaswami, a former economist and financial journalist who blogs at Confused of Calcutta, has a great post in response to a recent opinion piece in Inc. magazine that argues it does not. [...]

]]> By: Anne 2.0 » Blog Archive » links for 2006-09-11 http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2006/09/10/on-social-software-and-consensus/comment-page-1/#comment-7478 Anne 2.0 » Blog Archive » links for 2006-09-11 Tue, 12 Sep 2006 00:25:39 +0000 http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2006/09/10/on-social-software-and-consensus/#comment-7478 [...] Confused Of Calcutta » Blog Archive » On social software and consensus More barriers to using collaborative software within teams. (tags: enterprise enterprise2.0 social collaboration) [...] [...] Confused Of Calcutta » Blog Archive » On social software and consensus More barriers to using collaborative software within teams. (tags: enterprise enterprise2.0 social collaboration) [...]

]]> By: JP http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2006/09/10/on-social-software-and-consensus/comment-page-1/#comment-7451 JP Mon, 11 Sep 2006 20:08:26 +0000 http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2006/09/10/on-social-software-and-consensus/#comment-7451 Humans can and do get in the way. But I feel that with social software, we can find ways of optimising this process. If I take the crossword example, and extend it a bit, see what you think of it. Today I can complete the Times crossword faster than an average ten-person group. Probably. Tomorrow I start explaining to people how to do the crossword, taking a leaf out of Anthony Grey's wonderful Crosswords from Peking. Over time, many heads will be better than mine. I will stop being a bottleneck. And as crosswords scale up, and grow from 15x15 grids to global multilingual 225x225 grids, there will come a time when I don't scale. But my group will scale. Especially with the context and learning and sharing that comes with social software. [So that's how you do it. I don't get that, can you run that by me again? hey guys, this sounds silly, but do you think 13 down is syzygy? etc etc] Humans can and do get in the way. But I feel that with social software, we can find ways of optimising this process.

If I take the crossword example, and extend it a bit, see what you think of it.

Today I can complete the Times crossword faster than an average ten-person group. Probably.
Tomorrow I start explaining to people how to do the crossword, taking a leaf out of Anthony Grey’s wonderful Crosswords from Peking.

Over time, many heads will be better than mine. I will stop being a bottleneck. And as crosswords scale up, and grow from 15×15 grids to global multilingual 225×225 grids, there will come a time when I don’t scale.

But my group will scale. Especially with the context and learning and sharing that comes with social software. [So that's how you do it. I don't get that, can you run that by me again? hey guys, this sounds silly, but do you think 13 down is syzygy? etc etc]

]]> By: John Dodds http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2006/09/10/on-social-software-and-consensus/comment-page-1/#comment-7443 John Dodds Mon, 11 Sep 2006 19:57:45 +0000 http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2006/09/10/on-social-software-and-consensus/#comment-7443 I was not saying that collaboration doesn't work or that crowds don't have wisdom - quite the opposite in fact. I was seeking to highlight that humans get in the way of it just as much as they enable it. As for the crossword example I highlighted - I was merely questioning the "in seconds" element of the claim - even using a moderator it would take much longer than that even if the solution was potentially available within seconds. But your admisison of expertise in this field now allows me to cheekily suggest that you acting alone could complete a puzzle far quicker than any group of ten of my friends working together. In certain cases the wisdom of the individual exceeds that of the crowd. I was not saying that collaboration doesn’t work or that crowds don’t have wisdom – quite the opposite in fact. I was seeking to highlight that humans get in the way of it just as much as they enable it.

As for the crossword example I highlighted – I was merely questioning the “in seconds” element of the claim – even using a moderator it would take much longer than that even if the solution was potentially available within seconds. But your admisison of expertise in this field now allows me to cheekily suggest that you acting alone could complete a puzzle far quicker than any group of ten of my friends working together. In certain cases the wisdom of the individual exceeds that of the crowd.

]]>