Through a reflection, darkly...

Okay, so as per instructions, I've taken the time to read my blog posts and respond...to myself.  I was, indeed a little surprised at what I found.  Below are excerpts, descriptions, and conclusions from a few of my blog posts that I felt best illustrated the direction I've started taking.



Publishers--In my blog post on the publishing industry, I explored the historical basis of the publishing industry, and I proposed that we still need organizations, control, and a certain amount of professionalization, because in many ways those are the institutions that make sure that promising advances get the funding that they need.

Quote: "Now, I don't want to give the wrong impression here. I agree that participation is good, and I approve of open source type movements, but I think it is still true that the best science and the biggest improvements and steps forward require money, and usually lots of it. Say what you will about the apparent greed of 17th-century publishers, they kept the funds that the printers needed flowing in their direction. We can't give control over to any one entity, sure, but is there a point where it goes too far? If we make it so anyone can access anything, where will the funding come for future advancements?"


Losing a Sidekick--In my blog post about losing a cell phone, I shared the story of Ivanna and her tech-savvy friend Evan.  Ivanna lost her phone, in a cab, and the person who took it refused to return it.  Their story of getting the phone back is a great example of a group of people who get energized and motivated to do something, and accomplish change.  It's an interesting and somewhat scary realization; a big enough crowd can choose the priorities of a police department, persecute a teenage girl...and get a phone back.  Is it worth the cost?  In brief, I explore the pros and cons of crowds working together like this.

Quote: "Who defines what kind of cause gets worked on by individuals and groups? Who should?"


Here comes the WORLD--This was a very interesting post for me, since it was something I personally enjoy a great deal.  I explored the different levels of participation and the different sizes of groups as they relate to chess.  It turns out that, like controlled and timed explosions, a large group of chess amateurs can work together to produce remarkable games.

Quote: "So, from these games, I have hypothesized that crowds can perform as well as or better than even the strongest individual chess players, given that they are organized, invested enough to make sure the work they do is valid, and they are assisted by a core of strong players to give them direction. Does this correspond at all with what others have found about crowdsourcing?"

So, in conclusion, I've decided that it's pretty clear that my focus has been on crowds versus formal, traditional organizations.  I'm trying to decide where each fits; I'm still critical of the idea that amateur crowds can do *anything* better than individuals can; "50 people are better than one Ph.D," still seems a little suspect to me, if only because it feels too general and absolute.  Having said that, it's impossible to ignore the bulk of evidence, and I have been slightly won over into accepting the power of the crowd.  Now it's a matter of deciding what each group can accomplish best, and where each should have their limits set.

Ordo ab Chao...