Talk:The Wisdom of Crowds: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
ClueBot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 1 discussion to Talk:The Wisdom of Crowds/Archive 1. (BOT) |
||
| (67 intermediate revisions by 47 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Talk header}} |
|||
http://www.flylittlebird.org is nothing to do with The Wisdom of Crowds. Please remove the reference! It does not ask a crowd anything, it asks a small and self-select group in one country what they think. They have no incentive structures to guess correctly and no penalty if they do not. It makes no account of speakers tailoring speeches to current events or a particular audience. It does not belong here, it dilutes the article and the meaning of the concept. --[[User:Rossjamesparker|Rossjamesparker]] 09:28, 25 October 2005 (UTC) |
|||
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C| |
|||
:Agreed - this bears little resemblance to Surowiecki's concept; it's just some people doing some research. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 13:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC) |
|||
{{WikiProject Books}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Internet|importance=mid}} |
|||
}} |
|||
{{high-traffic|url=http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/24/0114228|site=Slashdot|date=2007-07-24}} |
|||
{{Backwardscopy |
|||
|author = Surhone, L. M. |
|||
|year = 2010 |
|||
|title = The wisdom of crowds: James Surowiecki, anecdote, Francis Galton, crowd psychology, sampling (statistics), Charles Mackay |
|||
|org = |
|||
|comments = {{OCLC|700931293}}, {{ISBN|9786130456672}}. |
|||
|bot=LivingBot |
|||
}} |
|||
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis |
|||
:The article reads sometimes more as an essay or a critique of the book. It needs a lot of work to be NPOV. I will work on it a little bit, please join in and make the wisdom of crowds work for this article... [[User:Jossifresco|≈ jossi fresco ≈]] <small>[[User_talk:Jossifresco|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossifresco|@]]</small> 04:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC) |
|||
| age=2160 |
|||
| archiveprefix=Talk:The Wisdom of Crowds/Archive |
|||
| numberstart=1 |
|||
| maxarchsize=400000 |
|||
| header={{Automatic archive navigator}} |
|||
| minkeepthreads=4 |
|||
| minarchthreads=1 |
|||
| format= %%i |
|||
}} |
|||
== WOC is now a term as well as a book == |
|||
Umm... this is fine and all... but is there any counterpoint floating out there... thoughtful criticism of this "mobs know best method" ?... |
|||
-anon |
|||
The book's title has become a term used by people commentating on the internet. It has become a catchphrase just as was explained above in [[Talk:The_Wisdom_of_Crowds#Why wikipedia's mod system does not work ;)]] (by Anon) on 18 March 2007. |
|||
Since this article was conceived, the term "Wisdom of Crowds" is used articles on the culture & business of the internet, any easy adaption from the "[[wisdom of the crowd]]" so that people not in-the-know will still understand the sense of its use. |
|||
Now all I have to do is find a couple of good examples of the uses of this term. |
|||
And perhaps start a list of "Book titles which have entered the English language". - |
|||
[[User:Permacultura|Permacultura]] ([[User talk:Permacultura|talk]]) 13:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== suggested improvements == |
|||
Can I suggest that this article could be improved by having a couple of examples of the wisdom of crowds taken from the book. The lead cites the example of the average guesses for the weight of steer being more accurate than any single guess, but 1) this is not mentioned in the body of the article which contravenes Wikipeda policy that says the lead should summarise things already in the article, and 2) the single example could profitably be expanded to include up to three others. Given that much of the article is currently why other folks disagree with the basic concept some examples of it at work should help add some balance to the article. '''<span style="font-family:times new roman;">[[User:Cottonshirt|<span style="background:DarkRed;color:#fff;padding:0 4px">Cottonshirt</span>]][[User talk:Cottonshirt|<span style="background:Crimson;padding:0 4px;color:#fff;">τ</span>]]</span>''' 05:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC) |
|||
== Stupidity of crowd == |
|||
Just curious I browsed the Net with these keywords "stupidity of crowd". It appears that the "wisdom of crowds" is highly controversial. See for example this Ph. D. thesis: |
|||
Ryan, Scott. ‘Wisdom of Crowds: Tests of the Theory of Collective Accuracy’. Phdthesis, University of Connecticut, 2010. |
|||
In its conclusion: |
|||
"Collectives can be very accurate, but the current experiments indicate that this accuracy may only occur when individuals in the collective all have very similar knowledge. Such a situation may be the exception in practice, indicating that high collective accuracy may be a rare phenomenon. A small set of knowledgeable experts will often be more accurate than a large collective of individuals." |
|||
So, wouldn't be useful (and fair!) to add the references of such works that criticize the "wisdom of crowds"? |
|||
[[Special:Contributions/78.229.106.132|78.229.106.132]] ([[User talk:78.229.106.132|talk]]) 21:03, 18 March 2018 (UTC) |
|||
== Trust == |
|||
I was surprised to see trust as a criteria and removed it. That was a topic of chapter 6, but it's not a necessary ingredient to good/wise decisions from a crowd. In fact, people shouldn't need to even know one another. I've consulted my notes, and you can see other resources and reviews speak of 4 criteria. Perhaps I'm mistaken if someone can find a quote from the book saying there are 5 criteria including trust. |
|||
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/enwiki/w/wisdom-crowds.asp |
|||
https://arbtech.co.uk/book-review-wisdom-crowds-james-surowiecki/ |
|||
-[[User:Reagle|Reagle]] ([[User talk:Reagle|talk]]) 20:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC) |
|||
Latest revision as of 15:14, 10 January 2025
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Wisdom of Crowds article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
 | On 2007-07-24, The Wisdom of Crowds was linked from Slashdot, a high-traffic website. (Traffic) All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history. |
 | This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Since the external publication copied Wikipedia rather than the reverse, please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
|
WOC is now a term as well as a book
[edit]The book's title has become a term used by people commentating on the internet. It has become a catchphrase just as was explained above in Talk:The_Wisdom_of_Crowds#Why wikipedia's mod system does not work ;) (by Anon) on 18 March 2007. Since this article was conceived, the term "Wisdom of Crowds" is used articles on the culture & business of the internet, any easy adaption from the "wisdom of the crowd" so that people not in-the-know will still understand the sense of its use. Now all I have to do is find a couple of good examples of the uses of this term. And perhaps start a list of "Book titles which have entered the English language". - Permacultura (talk) 13:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
suggested improvements
[edit]Can I suggest that this article could be improved by having a couple of examples of the wisdom of crowds taken from the book. The lead cites the example of the average guesses for the weight of steer being more accurate than any single guess, but 1) this is not mentioned in the body of the article which contravenes Wikipeda policy that says the lead should summarise things already in the article, and 2) the single example could profitably be expanded to include up to three others. Given that much of the article is currently why other folks disagree with the basic concept some examples of it at work should help add some balance to the article. Cottonshirtτ 05:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Stupidity of crowd
[edit]Just curious I browsed the Net with these keywords "stupidity of crowd". It appears that the "wisdom of crowds" is highly controversial. See for example this Ph. D. thesis: Ryan, Scott. ‘Wisdom of Crowds: Tests of the Theory of Collective Accuracy’. Phdthesis, University of Connecticut, 2010.
In its conclusion: "Collectives can be very accurate, but the current experiments indicate that this accuracy may only occur when individuals in the collective all have very similar knowledge. Such a situation may be the exception in practice, indicating that high collective accuracy may be a rare phenomenon. A small set of knowledgeable experts will often be more accurate than a large collective of individuals."
So, wouldn't be useful (and fair!) to add the references of such works that criticize the "wisdom of crowds"? 78.229.106.132 (talk) 21:03, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Trust
[edit]I was surprised to see trust as a criteria and removed it. That was a topic of chapter 6, but it's not a necessary ingredient to good/wise decisions from a crowd. In fact, people shouldn't need to even know one another. I've consulted my notes, and you can see other resources and reviews speak of 4 criteria. Perhaps I'm mistaken if someone can find a quote from the book saying there are 5 criteria including trust.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/enwiki/w/wisdom-crowds.asp
https://arbtech.co.uk/book-review-wisdom-crowds-james-surowiecki/