I had the pleasure of meeting Tom Malone shortly after he’d published The Future Of Work, at Supernova 2004 (thanks to JD Lasica for the coverage), where we were both speaking. [If you're interested in what a 21st century firm will really look like, you must read Tom's book, especially in conjunction with that of John Roberts, The Modern Firm.]
Last Friday, Tom, along with a few others, kicked off a large-scale experiment. Called We Are Smarter Than Me, it brings together MIT, Wharton, Pearson and Shared Insights, seeking to confront and confound a particular paradox. In their own words:
- A few books have recently been written on this topic, but they all fail to confront one central paradox. While they extol the power of communities, they were each written by only one person. We’re putting this paradox to the test by inviting hundreds of thousands of authors to contribute to this “network book” using today’s technologies.
We’ve had experiments where people have collaborated on books online before (Dan Gillmor’s We The Media comes to mind) but I’ve never seen anything of this scale. I understand that over 1.5 million invitations have been sent out; no I did not get one of them :-) but that did not deter me from signing up. Check it out for yourself, barriers to participation are remarkably low. Which is a good thing.
Currently I’m just lurking, taking a look at what’s happening, as the structure and content of the book morphs around me lazily. Insane, like a smoke-ring day when the wind blows. Soon I will figure out where and how I want to participate. Follow the links to We Are Smarter if you want to know more.
I’m also intrigued by something else about the cultures forming in this giant Petri dish. I’ve always believed in a simple rule-of-thumb about opensource communities:
- For every 1000 people who join a community:
- 920 are lurkers, passive observers
- 60 are watchers, active observers capable and willing to kibitz
- 15 are activists, actually doing something
- …and 5 are hyperactive, passionate about what they’re doing, almost to a point of obsession
I shall watch with interest as the numbers grow, to see how close my rule of thumb is to reality. Any views out there, or shall I start a prediction market on this?
One final thing. One of the trends the book is meant to pick out is that of microfinance. I wonder. I just wonder. Take the network book and attach it to network funding, make it available on-demand whenever, wherever, however. I wonder.
8 responses so far ↓
1 David Tebbutt // Oct 30, 2006 at 8:58 pm
For every 1000 people who join a community:
920 are lurkers, passive observers, 60 are watchers, active observers capable and willing to kibitz, 15 are activists, actually doing something, …and 5 are hyperactive, passionate about what they’re doing, almost to a point of obsession.
Does this apply only to ‘public’ communities, or business ones as well?
Worrying numbers if echoed inside enterprises. To get two people highly involved, you need 100 or so members of a community.
2 A formula for community engagement at Churbuck.com // Oct 31, 2006 at 12:35 pm
[...] Confused Of Calcutta » Blog Archive » None of Us is As Smart as All of Us [...]
3 John Dodds // Oct 31, 2006 at 12:41 pm
Coincidentally, I quoted a similar statistic in my user democracy post on sunday - it originated from Jakob Nielsen and was focussed online - he gave the split as 90-9-1.
If interestede on the details you can link to his piece from here http://makemarketinghistory.blogspot.com/2006/10/user-democracy.html
4 Cahill // Oct 31, 2006 at 2:45 pm
My experience dovetails with this, both in niche community forums, as well as business forums. However, the stat misses the 2 out of 1000 whose heads you will need to stick on a pike as warnings to others.
FWIW, I find the numbers are better in tech communities.
David T. - if you can engage your activists and active observers early, the numbers may work better starting out.
5 Vario Creative Blog » Forum Moderation and the Problem User // Oct 31, 2006 at 3:31 pm
[...] David Churbuck’s posted here and here on the subject of lurkers and forum engagement in online communities, as did J.P. Rangaswami on his ConfusedinCalcutta.com blog. David suggested that I post on my experiences in working with him on the Reel-Time.com forum since 1995 or so. [...]
6 Confused Of Calcutta » Blog Archive » Community participation rule-of-thumb: a follow-up post // Oct 31, 2006 at 11:08 pm
[...] There were quite a few interesting comments on a recent post of mine, where I’d outlined a community participation rule-of-thumb I’d been using for a while, which I repeat here for the sake of convenience: [...]
7 Confused Of Calcutta Blog Archive None of Us is As Smart as All of Us « Bankwatch // Nov 2, 2006 at 3:35 am
[...] Interesting posts here and follow up here from Confused of Calcutta. I’ve always believed in a simple rule-of-thumb about opensource communities: [...]
8 Musing about opensource: The threat is stronger than the move | confused of calcutta // Jan 12, 2007 at 12:52 pm
[...] I’ve always believed in a community participation rule of thumb, something I’ve written about before here and here. The numbers tell the story: [...]
Leave a Comment