Jump to content

Collective intelligence: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
m Cleaned up using AutoEd
Line 3: Line 3:
[[File:CI types1s.jpg|thumb|460px|{{center|Types of collective intelligence}}]]
[[File:CI types1s.jpg|thumb|460px|{{center|Types of collective intelligence}}]]


'''Collective intelligence''' is [[Shared intelligence|shared]] or [[Group intelligence|group]] intelligence that [[Emergence|emerges]] from the collaboration, collective efforts, and competition of many individuals and appears in [[consensus decision making]]. The term appears in [[sociobiology]], [[political science]] and in context of [[Peer review|mass peer review]] and [[crowdsourcing]] applications. It may involve [[consensus]], [[social capital]] and formalisms such as [[voting systems]], [[social media]] and other means of quantifying mass activity. '''Collective IQ''' is a measure of collective intelligence, although it is often used interchangeably with the term collective intelligence.
'''Collective intelligence''' is [[Shared intelligence|shared]] or [[Group intelligence|group]] intelligence that [[Emergence|emerges]] from the collaboration, collective efforts, and competition of many individuals and appears in [[consensus decision making]]. The term appears in [[sociobiology]], [[political science]] and in context of [[Peer review|mass peer review]] and [[crowdsourcing]] applications. It may involve [[consensus]], [[social capital]] and formalisms such as [[voting systems]], [[social media]] and other means of quantifying mass activity. '''Collective IQ''' is a measure of collective intelligence, although it is often used interchangeably with the term collective intelligence.


Collective intelligence has also been attributed to bacteria<ref name="Nguyen2011-63">{{cite book|author=Ngoc Thanh Nguyen|title=Transactions on Computational Collective Intelligence III|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=RUxv25JFTkkC&pg=PA63|accessdate=11 June 2013|date=25 July 2011|publisher=Springer|isbn=978-3-642-19967-7|page=63}}</ref> and animals.<ref name="Nguyen2011-69">{{cite book|author=Ngoc Thanh Nguyen|title=Transactions on Computational Collective Intelligence III|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=RUxv25JFTkkC&pg=PA69|accessdate=11 June 2013|date=25 July 2011|publisher=Springer|isbn=978-3-642-19967-7|page=69}}</ref>
Collective intelligence has also been attributed to bacteria<ref name="Nguyen2011-63">{{cite book|author=Ngoc Thanh Nguyen|title=Transactions on Computational Collective Intelligence III|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=RUxv25JFTkkC&pg=PA63|accessdate=11 June 2013|date=25 July 2011|publisher=Springer|isbn=978-3-642-19967-7|page=63}}</ref> and animals.<ref name="Nguyen2011-69">{{cite book|author=Ngoc Thanh Nguyen|title=Transactions on Computational Collective Intelligence III|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=RUxv25JFTkkC&pg=PA69|accessdate=11 June 2013|date=25 July 2011|publisher=Springer|isbn=978-3-642-19967-7|page=69}}</ref>


It can be understood as an emergent property from the synergies among: 1) data-information-knowledge; 2) software-hardware; and 3) experts (those with new insights as well as recognized authorities) that continually learns from feedback to produce just-in-time knowledge for better decisions than these three elements acting alone.<ref>Glenn, Jerome C. Collective Intelligence&nbsp;– One of the Next Big Things, Futura 4/2009, Finnish Society for Futures Studies, Helsinki, Finland</ref> Or more narrowly as an emergent property between people and ways of processing information.<ref>Glenn, Jerome C. Chapter 5, 2008 State of the Future. The Millennium Project, Washington, DC 2008</ref> This notion of collective intelligence is referred to as '''Symbiotic intelligence''' by Norman Lee Johnson.<ref>Norman Lee Johnson, [http://CollectiveScience.com Collective Science site]</ref> The concept is used in [[sociology]], [[Prediction market|business]], [[computer science]] and mass communications: it also appears in science fiction.
It can be understood as an emergent property from the synergies among: 1) data-information-knowledge; 2) software-hardware; and 3) experts (those with new insights as well as recognized authorities) that continually learns from feedback to produce just-in-time knowledge for better decisions than these three elements acting alone.<ref>Glenn, Jerome C. Collective Intelligence&nbsp;– One of the Next Big Things, Futura 4/2009, Finnish Society for Futures Studies, Helsinki, Finland</ref> Or more narrowly as an emergent property between people and ways of processing information.<ref>Glenn, Jerome C. Chapter 5, 2008 State of the Future. The Millennium Project, Washington, DC 2008</ref> This notion of collective intelligence is referred to as '''Symbiotic intelligence''' by Norman Lee Johnson.<ref>Norman Lee Johnson, [http://CollectiveScience.com Collective Science site]</ref> The concept is used in [[sociology]], [[Prediction market|business]], [[computer science]] and mass communications: it also appears in science fiction.


[[Pierre Lévy (philosopher)|Pierre Lévy]] defines collective intelligence as, "It is a form of universally distributed intelligence, constantly enhanced, coordinated in real time, and resulting in the effective mobilization of skills. I'll add the following indispensable characteristic to this definition: The basis and goal of collective intelligence is mutual recognition and enrichment of individuals rather than the cult of fetishized or hypostatized communities." <ref>Pierre Lévy, Collective intelligence: Mankind's Emerging World in Cyberspace, 1994, p. 13</ref>
[[Pierre Lévy (philosopher)|Pierre Lévy]] defines collective intelligence as, "It is a form of universally distributed intelligence, constantly enhanced, coordinated in real time, and resulting in the effective mobilization of skills. I'll add the following indispensable characteristic to this definition: The basis and goal of collective intelligence is mutual recognition and enrichment of individuals rather than the cult of fetishized or hypostatized communities." <ref>Pierre Lévy, ''Collective Intelligence: Mankind's Emerging World in Cyberspace'', 1994, p. 13</ref>


According to researchers [[Lévy]] and [[Derrick de Kerckhove|Kerckhove]], it refers to capacity of networked [[ICTs]] (Information communication technologies) to enhance the collective pool of social knowledge by simultaneously expanding the extent of human interactions.<ref>Flew, Terry New Media: An introduction: Oxford University Press, 2007, p. 21</ref>
According to researchers [[Lévy]] and [[Derrick de Kerckhove|Kerckhove]], it refers to capacity of networked [[ICTs]] (Information communication technologies) to enhance the collective pool of social knowledge by simultaneously expanding the extent of human interactions.<ref>Flew, Terry ''New Media: An Introduction''. Oxford University Press, 2007, p. 21</ref>


Collective intelligence strongly contributes to the shift of knowledge and power from the individual to the collective. According to [[Eric S. Raymond]] (1998) and JC Herz (2005), open source intelligence will eventually generate superior outcomes to knowledge generated by proprietary software developed within corporations ([[Terry Flew|Flew]] 2008).
Collective intelligence strongly contributes to the shift of knowledge and power from the individual to the collective. According to [[Eric S. Raymond]] (1998) and JC Herz (2005), open source intelligence will eventually generate superior outcomes to knowledge generated by proprietary software developed within corporations ([[Terry Flew|Flew]] 2008).


Meanwhile media theorist [[Henry Jenkins]] sees collective intelligence as an ‘alternative source of media power‘, which is closely related to convergence culture. He draws attention to education and the way people are learning to participate in such knowledge cultures outside of formal learning settings. [[Jenkins|Henry Jenkins]] criticizes schools which promote ‘autonomous problem solvers and self-contained learners‘ while remaining hostile to learning through the means of collective intelligence.<ref>Jenkins, Henry Convergence Culture: Where old and new media collide. New York: New York University Press, 2006, p. 259</ref>
Meanwhile media theorist [[Henry Jenkins]] sees collective intelligence as an 'lternative source of media power', which is closely related to convergence culture. He draws attention to education and the way people are learning to participate in such knowledge cultures outside of formal learning settings. [[Jenkins|Henry Jenkins]] criticizes schools which promote 'autonomous problem solvers and self-contained learners' while remaining hostile to learning through the means of collective intelligence.<ref>Jenkins, ''Henry Convergence Culture: Where old and new media collide''. New York: New York University Press, 2006, p. 259</ref>


Ultimately, both [[Pierre Lévy]] (2007) and [[Henry Jenkins]] (2008) support the claim that collective intelligence is important for the process of [[democratization]], as it is interlinked with knowledge-based culture, which is sustained by collective idea sharing, and thus contributes to a better understanding of diverse society among different actors.
Ultimately, both [[Pierre Lévy]] (2007) and [[Henry Jenkins]] (2008) support the claim that collective intelligence is important for the process of [[democratization]], as it is interlinked with knowledge-based culture, which is sustained by collective idea sharing, and thus contributes to a better understanding of diverse society among different actors.


Writers who have influenced the idea of collective intelligence include [[Douglas Hofstadter]] (1979), Peter Russell (1983), [[Tom Atlee]] (1993), [[Pierre Lévy (philosopher)|Pierre Lévy]] (1994), [[Howard Bloom]] (1995), [[Francis Heylighen]] (1995), [[Douglas Engelbart]], [[Cliff Joslyn]], [[Ron Dembo]], Gottfried Mayer-Kress (2003).
Writers who have influenced the idea of collective intelligence include [[Douglas Hofstadter]] (1979), Peter Russell (1983), [[Tom Atlee]] (1993), [[Pierre Lévy (philosopher)|Pierre Lévy]] (1994), [[Howard Bloom]] (1995), [[Francis Heylighen]] (1995), [[Douglas Engelbart]], [[Cliff Joslyn]], [[Ron Dembo]], Gottfried Mayer-Kress (2003).


== History ==
== History ==
A precursor of the concept is found in entomologist [[William Morton Wheeler]]'s observation that seemingly independent individuals can cooperate so closely as to become indistinguishable from a single organism (1911).<ref>Its source can be found in this link http://skccblog.tistory.com/716. wroten by story teller who belongs to SK C&C, story teller explains history of collective intelligence. also, it mentioned principle of collective intelligence. especially, it says William Morton Wheeler studied it at first time. The title is 'collective intelligence that made us who are smarter than me'</ref> Wheeler saw this collaborative process at work in ants that acted like the cells of a single beast he called a "superorganism".
A precursor of the concept is found in entomologist [[William Morton Wheeler]]'s observation that seemingly independent individuals can cooperate so closely as to become indistinguishable from a single organism (1911).<ref>Its source can be found in this link http://skccblog.tistory.com/716. wroten by story teller who belongs to SK C&C, story teller explains history of collective intelligence. also, it mentioned principle of collective intelligence. especially, it says William Morton Wheeler studied it at first time. The title is 'collective intelligence that made us who are smarter than me'</ref> Wheeler saw this collaborative process at work in ants that acted like the cells of a single beast he called a "superorganism".


In 1912 [[Émile Durkheim]] identified society as the sole source of human logical thought. He argued, in "[[The Elementary Forms of Religious Life]]" that society constitutes a higher intelligence because it transcends the individual over space and time.<ref>Émile Durkheim, ''The Elementary Forms of Religious Life'', 1912.</ref> Other antecedents are [[Vladimir Vernadsky]]'s concept of "[[noosphere]]" and [[H.G. Wells]]'s concept of "[[world brain]]" (see also the term "[[global brain]]"). Peter Russell, [[Elisabet Sahtouris]], and [[Barbara Marx Hubbard]] (originator of the term "conscious evolution" {{Citation needed|date=May 2011}}) are inspired by the visions of a noosphere&nbsp;&ndash; a transcendent, rapidly evolving collective intelligence&nbsp;&ndash; an informational cortex of the planet. The notion has more recently been examined by the philosopher [[Pierre Lévy (philosopher)|Pierre Lévy]]. [[Douglas Engelbart|Doug Engelbart]] began using the term 'Collective IQ' in the mid 1990s as a measure of collective intelligence, to focus attention on the opportunity for business and society to pro-actively raise their Collective IQ<ref>[http://www.archive.org/stream/boostingcollecti00drdo#page/n9/mode/2up Engelbart's 1994 definition of 'Collective IQ']&nbsp;– found on Slide 4</ref>
In 1912 [[Émile Durkheim]] identified society as the sole source of human logical thought. He argued, in "[[The Elementary Forms of Religious Life]]" that society constitutes a higher intelligence because it transcends the individual over space and time.<ref>Émile Durkheim, ''The Elementary Forms of Religious Life'', 1912.</ref> Other antecedents are [[Vladimir Vernadsky]]'s concept of "[[noosphere]]" and [[H.G. Wells]]'s concept of "[[world brain]]" (see also the term "[[global brain]]"). Peter Russell, [[Elisabet Sahtouris]], and [[Barbara Marx Hubbard]] (originator of the term "conscious evolution" {{Citation needed|date=May 2011}}) are inspired by the visions of a noosphere&nbsp; a transcendent, rapidly evolving collective intelligence&nbsp; an informational cortex of the planet. The notion has more recently been examined by the philosopher [[Pierre Lévy (philosopher)|Pierre Lévy]]. [[Douglas Engelbart|Doug Engelbart]] began using the term 'Collective IQ' in the mid 1990s as a measure of collective intelligence, to focus attention on the opportunity for business and society to pro-actively raise their Collective IQ<ref>[http://www.archive.org/stream/boostingcollecti00drdo#page/n9/mode/2up Engelbart's 1994 definition of 'Collective IQ']&nbsp;– found on Slide 4</ref>


== Dimensions ==
== Dimensions ==
[[Howard Bloom]] has discussed mass behavior—[[collective behavior]] from the level of quarks to the level of bacterial, plant, animal, and human societies. He stresses the biological adaptations that have turned most of this earth's living beings into components of what he calls "a learning machine". In 1986 Bloom combined the concepts of [[apoptosis]], [[parallel distributed processing]], [[group selection]], and the superorganism to produce a theory of how collective intelligence works.<ref>Howard Bloom, ''The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History'', 1995</ref> Later he showed how the collective intelligences of competing bacterial colonies and human societies can be explained in terms of computer-generated "[[complex adaptive systems]]" and the "[[genetic algorithms]]", concepts pioneered by [[John Henry Holland|John Holland]].<ref name="bloom2000"/>

[[Howard Bloom]] has discussed mass behavior - [[collective behavior]] from the level of quarks to the level of bacterial, plant, animal, and human societies. He stresses the biological adaptations that have turned most of this earth's living beings into components of what he calls "a learning machine". In 1986 Bloom combined the concepts of [[apoptosis]], [[parallel distributed processing]], [[group selection]], and the superorganism to produce a theory of how collective intelligence works.<ref>Howard Bloom, ''The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History'', 1995</ref> Later he showed how the collective intelligences of competing bacterial colonies and human societies can be explained in terms of computer-generated "[[complex adaptive systems]]" and the "[[genetic algorithms]]", concepts pioneered by [[John Henry Holland|John Holland]].<ref name="bloom2000"/>


Bloom traced the evolution of collective intelligence to our bacterial ancestors 1 billion years ago and demonstrated how a multi-species intelligence has worked since the beginning of life.<ref name="bloom2000">Howard Bloom, ''Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bang to the 21st Century'', 2000</ref> Ant societies exhibit more intelligence, in terms of technology, than any other animal except for humans and co-operate in keeping livestock, for example [[aphid]]s for "milking". Leaf cutters care for fungi and carry leaves to feed the fungi.
Bloom traced the evolution of collective intelligence to our bacterial ancestors 1 billion years ago and demonstrated how a multi-species intelligence has worked since the beginning of life.<ref name="bloom2000">Howard Bloom, ''Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bang to the 21st Century'', 2000</ref> Ant societies exhibit more intelligence, in terms of technology, than any other animal except for humans and co-operate in keeping livestock, for example [[aphid]]s for "milking". Leaf cutters care for fungi and carry leaves to feed the fungi.


[[David Skrbina]]<ref>Skrbina, D., 2001, [http://www.bath.ac.uk/carpp/publications/doc_theses_links/pdf/dt_ds_chapter8.pdf Participation, Organization, and Mind: Toward a Participatory Worldview], ch. 8, Doctoral Thesis, Centre for Action Research in Professional Practice, School of Management, University of Bath: England</ref> cites the concept of a ‘group mind’ as being derived from Plato’s concept of [[panpsychism]] (that mind or consciousness is omnipresent and exists in all matter). He develops the concept of a ‘group mind’ as articulated by [[Thomas Hobbes]] in "Leviathan" and [[Gustav Fechner|Fechner]]’s arguments for a [[collective consciousness]] of mankind. He cites [[Émile Durkheim|Durkheim]] as the most notable advocate of a "collective consciousness" and [[Teilhard de Chardin]] as a thinker who has developed the philosophical implications of the group mind.
[[David Skrbina]]<ref>Skrbina, D., 2001, [http://www.bath.ac.uk/carpp/publications/doc_theses_links/pdf/dt_ds_chapter8.pdf Participation, Organization, and Mind: Toward a Participatory Worldview], ch. 8, Doctoral Thesis, Centre for Action Research in Professional Practice, School of Management, University of Bath: England</ref> cites the concept of a 'group mind' as being derived from Plato's concept of [[panpsychism]] (that mind or consciousness is omnipresent and exists in all matter). He develops the concept of a ‘group mind’ as articulated by [[Thomas Hobbes]] in "Leviathan" and [[Gustav Fechner|Fechner]]'s arguments for a [[collective consciousness]] of mankind. He cites [[Émile Durkheim|Durkheim]] as the most notable advocate of a "collective consciousness" and [[Teilhard de Chardin]] as a thinker who has developed the philosophical implications of the group mind.


Tom Atlee focuses primarily on humans and on work to upgrade what Howard Bloom calls "the group IQ". Atlee feels that collective intelligence can be encouraged "to overcome '[[groupthink]]' and individual [[cognitive bias]] in order to allow a collective to cooperate on one process—while achieving enhanced intellectual performance." George Pór defined the collective intelligence phenomenon as "the capacity of human communities to evolve towards higher order complexity and harmony, through such innovation mechanisms as differentiation and integration, competition and collaboration."<ref>George Pór, [http://www.community-intelligence.com/blogs/public Blog of Collective Intelligence]</ref> Atlee and Pór state that "collective intelligence also involves achieving a single focus of attention and standard of metrics which provide an appropriate threshold of action". Their approach is rooted in [[Scientific Community Metaphor]].
Tom Atlee focuses primarily on humans and on work to upgrade what Howard Bloom calls "the group IQ". Atlee feels that collective intelligence can be encouraged "to overcome '[[groupthink]]' and individual [[cognitive bias]] in order to allow a collective to cooperate on one process—while achieving enhanced intellectual performance." George Pór defined the collective intelligence phenomenon as "the capacity of human communities to evolve towards higher order complexity and harmony, through such innovation mechanisms as differentiation and integration, competition and collaboration."<ref>George Pór, [http://www.community-intelligence.com/blogs/public Blog of Collective Intelligence]</ref> Atlee and Pór state that "collective intelligence also involves achieving a single focus of attention and standard of metrics which provide an appropriate threshold of action". Their approach is rooted in [[Scientific Community Metaphor]].


Atlee and Pór suggest that the field of collective intelligence should primarily be seen as a '''human''' enterprise in which mind-sets, a willingness to share and an openness to the value of distributed intelligence for the common good are paramount, though group theory and [[artificial intelligence]] have something to offer. Individuals who respect collective intelligence are confident of their own abilities and recognize that the whole is indeed greater than the sum of any individual parts.{{Citation needed|date=February 2007}} Maximizing collective intelligence relies on the ability of an organization to accept and develop "The Golden Suggestion", which is any potentially useful input from any member. [[Groupthink]] often hampers collective intelligence by limiting input to a select few individuals or filtering potential Golden Suggestions without fully developing them to implementation.
Atlee and Pór suggest that the field of collective intelligence should primarily be seen as a '''human''' enterprise in which mind-sets, a willingness to share and an openness to the value of distributed intelligence for the common good are paramount, though group theory and [[artificial intelligence]] have something to offer. Individuals who respect collective intelligence are confident of their own abilities and recognize that the whole is indeed greater than the sum of any individual parts.{{citation needed|date=February 2007}} Maximizing collective intelligence relies on the ability of an organization to accept and develop "The Golden Suggestion", which is any potentially useful input from any member. [[Groupthink]] often hampers collective intelligence by limiting input to a select few individuals or filtering potential Golden Suggestions without fully developing them to implementation.


[[Robert David Steele Vivas]] in ''The New Craft of Intelligence'' portrayed all citizens as "intelligence minutemen," drawing only on legal and ethical sources of information, able to create a "public intelligence" that keeps public officials and corporate managers honest, turning the concept of "national intelligence" (previously concerned about spies and secrecy) on its head.
[[Robert David Steele Vivas]] in ''The New Craft of Intelligence'' portrayed all citizens as "intelligence minutemen," drawing only on legal and ethical sources of information, able to create a "public intelligence" that keeps public officials and corporate managers honest, turning the concept of "national intelligence" (previously concerned about spies and secrecy) on its head.
Line 44: Line 43:
; Openness: Sharing ideas and intellectual property: though these resources provide the edge over competitors more benefits accrue from allowing others to share ideas and gain significant improvement and scrutiny through collaboration.
; Openness: Sharing ideas and intellectual property: though these resources provide the edge over competitors more benefits accrue from allowing others to share ideas and gain significant improvement and scrutiny through collaboration.


; Peering: Horizontal organization as with the ‘opening up’ of the Linux program where users are free to modify and develop it provided that they make it available for others. Peering succeeds because it encourages self-organization&nbsp;– a style of production that works more effectively than hierarchical management for certain tasks.
; Peering: Horizontal organization as with the 'opening up' of the Linux program where users are free to modify and develop it provided that they make it available for others. Peering succeeds because it encourages self-organization&nbsp;– a style of production that works more effectively than hierarchical management for certain tasks.


; Sharing: Companies have started to share some ideas while maintaining some degree of control over others, like potential and critical patent rights. Limiting all intellectual property shuts out opportunities, while sharing some expands markets and brings out products faster.
; Sharing: Companies have started to share some ideas while maintaining some degree of control over others, like potential and critical patent rights. Limiting all intellectual property shuts out opportunities, while sharing some expands markets and brings out products faster.


; Acting Globally: The advancement in communication technology has prompted the rise of global companies at low overhead costs. The internet is widespread, therefore a globally integrated company has no geographical boundaries and may access new markets, ideas and technology.<ref name="Tapscott, D. 2008">Tapscott, D., & Williams, A. D. (2008). Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything, USA: Penguin Group</ref>
; Acting Globally: The advancement in communication technology has prompted the rise of global companies at low overhead costs. The internet is widespread, therefore a globally integrated company has no geographical boundaries and may access new markets, ideas and technology.<ref name="Tapscott, D. 2008">Tapscott, D., & Williams, A. D. (2008). ''Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything'', USA: Penguin Group</ref>


== Examples ==
== Examples ==

The ''Global Futures Collective Intelligence System'' (GFIS) at www.themp.org was created by The Millennium Project in 2012.
The ''Global Futures Collective Intelligence System'' (GFIS) at www.themp.org was created by The Millennium Project in 2012.


Political parties mobilize large numbers of people to form policy, select candidates and finance and run election campaigns. Knowledge focusing through various [[voting]] methods allows perspectives to converge through the assumption that uninformed voting is to some degree random and can be filtered from the decision process leaving only a residue of informed consensus. Critics point out that often bad ideas, misunderstandings, and misconceptions are widely held, and that structuring of the decision process must favor experts who are presumably less prone to random or misinformed voting in a given context.{{citation needed|date=June 2012}}
Political parties mobilize large numbers of people to form policy, select candidates and finance and run election campaigns. Knowledge focusing through various [[voting]] methods allows perspectives to converge through the assumption that uninformed voting is to some degree random and can be filtered from the decision process leaving only a residue of informed consensus. Critics point out that often bad ideas, misunderstandings, and misconceptions are widely held, and that structuring of the decision process must favor experts who are presumably less prone to random or misinformed voting in a given context.{{citation needed|date=June 2012}}


Military united, trade unions, and corporations satisfy some definitions of CI&nbsp;— the most rigorous definition would require a capacity to respond to very arbitrary conditions without orders or guidance from "law" or "customers" to constrain actions. {{Citation needed span|text=Online advertising companies are using collective intelligence to bypass traditional marketing and creative agencies.|date=June 2012}}
Military united, trade unions, and corporations satisfy some definitions of CI&nbsp;— the most rigorous definition would require a capacity to respond to very arbitrary conditions without orders or guidance from "law" or "customers" to constrain actions.{{citation needed span|text=Online advertising companies are using collective intelligence to bypass traditional marketing and creative agencies.|date=June 2012}}


In [[Learner generated context]] a group of users marshal resources to create an ecology that meets their needs often (but not only) in relation to the co-configuration, co-creation and co-design of a particular learning space that allows learners to create their own context.<ref>Luckin, R., du Boulay, B., Smith, H., Underwood, J., Fitzpatrick, G., Holmberg, J., Kerawalla, L., Tunley, H., Brewster, D. and Pearce, D. (2005), 'Using Mobile Technology to Create Flexible Learning Contexts '. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 22.</ref><ref>Luckin, R. (2006), Understanding Learning Contexts as Ecologies of Resources: From the Zone of Proximal Development to Learner Generated Contexts. Paper presented at the Proceedings of World Conference on Elearning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2006.</ref><ref>Luckin, R., Shurville, S. and Browne, T. (2007), 'Initiating elearning by stealth, participation and consultation in a late majority institution'. Organisational Transformation and Social Change, 3, 4, 317–332.</ref> Learner generated contexts represent an ''ad hoc'' community that facilitates coordination of collective action in a network of trust. An example of Learner generated context is found on the Internet when collaborative users pool knowledge in a "shared intelligence space" such as [[Wikipedia]]. As the Internet has developed so has the concept of CI as a shared public forum. The global accessibility and availability of the Internet has allowed more people than ever to contribute and access ideas. (Flew 2008)
In [[Learner generated context]] a group of users marshal resources to create an ecology that meets their needs often (but not only) in relation to the co-configuration, co-creation and co-design of a particular learning space that allows learners to create their own context.<ref>Luckin, R., du Boulay, B., Smith, H., Underwood, J., Fitzpatrick, G., Holmberg, J., Kerawalla, L., Tunley, H., Brewster, D. and Pearce, D. (2005), 'Using Mobile Technology to Create Flexible Learning Contexts '. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 22.</ref><ref>Luckin, R. (2006), Understanding Learning Contexts as Ecologies of Resources: From the Zone of Proximal Development to Learner Generated Contexts. Paper presented at the Proceedings of World Conference on Elearning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2006.</ref><ref>Luckin, R., Shurville, S. and Browne, T. (2007), 'Initiating elearning by stealth, participation and consultation in a late majority institution'. Organisational Transformation and Social Change, 3, 4, 317–332.</ref> Learner generated contexts represent an ''ad hoc'' community that facilitates coordination of collective action in a network of trust. An example of Learner generated context is found on the Internet when collaborative users pool knowledge in a "shared intelligence space" such as [[Wikipedia]]. As the Internet has developed so has the concept of CI as a shared public forum. The global accessibility and availability of the Internet has allowed more people than ever to contribute and access ideas. (Flew 2008)
Line 65: Line 63:


'''Quora'''
'''Quora'''

The online service [[Quora]] is a portal where anyone can ask any question and anyone can answer. The questions are categorized and tagged for easier navigation. A question about, for example, Apple’s CEO Tim Cook will be found in the Apple and CEO category and Apple and Tim Cook will be an individual tag. If someone is wondering, for example, ‘what it is like to work with Tim Cook’ the answer to the question required private or intimate information that is (by definition) not publicly available. Users can answer with their name or anonymously. Obtaining this private information is, of course, valuable to gain an insight or to look behind the scenes.
The online service [[Quora]] is a portal where anyone can ask any question and anyone can answer. The questions are categorized and tagged for easier navigation. A question about, for example, Apple’s CEO Tim Cook will be found in the Apple and CEO category and Apple and Tim Cook will be an individual tag. If someone is wondering, for example, ‘what it is like to work with Tim Cook’ the answer to the question required private or intimate information that is (by definition) not publicly available. Users can answer with their name or anonymously. Obtaining this private information is, of course, valuable to gain an insight or to look behind the scenes.

Often questions refer to first hand experiences and the answers are often carefully curated eposées and detailed logs of it. It gives the user the ability to gain a detailed insights and information is thus democratized. The collection of experiences is a perfect example of collective intelligence.
Often questions refer to first hand experiences and the answers are often carefully curated eposées and detailed logs of it. It gives the user the ability to gain a detailed insights and information is thus democratized. The collection of experiences is a perfect example of collective intelligence.


Line 84: Line 82:
Researchers<ref>[http://cci.mit.edu/people/index.html MIT Center for Collective Intelligence]. Cci.mit.edu. Retrieved on 2013-07-13.</ref> at the [[MIT Center for Collective Intelligence]] research and explore collective intelligence of groups of people and computers.
Researchers<ref>[http://cci.mit.edu/people/index.html MIT Center for Collective Intelligence]. Cci.mit.edu. Retrieved on 2013-07-13.</ref> at the [[MIT Center for Collective Intelligence]] research and explore collective intelligence of groups of people and computers.


In this context collective intelligence is often confused with [[shared knowledge]]. The former is knowledge that is generally available to all members of a community while the latter is information known by all members of a community.<ref>Jenkins, H. 2006. ''Fans, Bloggers and Gamers: Exploring Participatory Culture''. New York: New York University Press.</ref> Collective intelligence as represented by [[Web 2.0]] has less user engagement than [[collaborative intelligence]]. An art project using Web 2.0 platforms is "Shared Galaxy", an experiment developed by an anonymous artist to create a collective identity that shows up as one person on several platforms like MySpace, Facebook, YouTube and Second Life. The password is written in the profiles and the accounts named "Shared Galaxy" are open to be used by anyone. In this way many take part in being one.{{Citation needed|date=June 2012}}
In this context collective intelligence is often confused with [[shared knowledge]]. The former is knowledge that is generally available to all members of a community while the latter is information known by all members of a community.<ref>Jenkins, H. 2006. ''Fans, Bloggers and Gamers: Exploring Participatory Culture''. New York: New York University Press.</ref> Collective intelligence as represented by [[Web 2.0]] has less user engagement than [[collaborative intelligence]]. An art project using Web 2.0 platforms is "Shared Galaxy", an experiment developed by an anonymous artist to create a collective identity that shows up as one person on several platforms like MySpace, Facebook, YouTube and Second Life. The password is written in the profiles and the accounts named "Shared Galaxy" are open to be used by anyone. In this way many take part in being one.{{citation needed|date=June 2012}}


Growth of the Internet and mobile telecom has also produced "swarming" or "rendezvous" events that enable meetings or even dates on demand. The full impact has yet to be felt but the [[anti-globalization movement]], for example, relies heavily on e-mail, cell phones, pagers, SMS and other means of organizing. {{Citation needed span|text=Atlee discusses the connections between these events and the political views that drive them.|date=June 2012}} The [[Indymedia]] organization does this in a more journalistic way. Such resources could combine into a form of collective intelligence accountable only to the current participants yet with some strong moral or linguistic guidance from generations of contributors&nbsp;– or even take on a more obviously democratic form to advance shared goals.
Growth of the Internet and mobile telecom has also produced "swarming" or "rendezvous" events that enable meetings or even dates on demand. The full impact has yet to be felt but the [[anti-globalization movement]], for example, relies heavily on e-mail, cell phones, pagers, SMS and other means of organizing. {{Citation needed span|text=Atlee discusses the connections between these events and the political views that drive them.|date=June 2012}} The [[Indymedia]] organization does this in a more journalistic way. Such resources could combine into a form of collective intelligence accountable only to the current participants yet with some strong moral or linguistic guidance from generations of contributors&nbsp;– or even take on a more obviously democratic form to advance shared goals.


=== Social bookmarking ===
=== Social bookmarking ===
In [[social bookmarking]] (also called collaborative tagging), users assign tags to resources shared with other users, which gives rise to a type of information organisation that emerges from this [[crowdsourcing]] process. The resulting information structure can be seen as reflecting the collective knowledge (or collective intelligence) of a community of users and is commonly called a "[[Folksonomy]]", and the process can be captured by [[models of collaborative tagging]].
In [[social bookmarking]] (also called collaborative tagging), users assign tags to resources shared with other users, which gives rise to a type of information organisation that emerges from this [[crowdsourcing]] process. The resulting information structure can be seen as reflecting the collective knowledge (or collective intelligence) of a community of users and is commonly called a "[[Folksonomy]]", and the process can be captured by [[models of collaborative tagging]].


Recent research using data from the social bookmarking website [[Delicious (website)|Delicious]], has shown that collaborative tagging systems exhibit a form of [[complex system]]s (or [[Self-organization|self-organizing]]) dynamics.<ref name="WWW07-ref" >Harry Halpin, Valentin Robu, Hana Shepherd [http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1242572.1242602 The Complex Dynamics of Collaborative Tagging], Proceedings 6th International Conference on the World Wide Web (WWW'07), Banff, Canada, pp. 211-220, ACM Press, 2007.</ref><ref>
Recent research using data from the social bookmarking website [[Delicious (website)|Delicious]], has shown that collaborative tagging systems exhibit a form of [[complex system]]s (or [[Self-organization|self-organizing]]) dynamics.<ref name="WWW07-ref" >Harry Halpin, Valentin Robu, Hana Shepherd [http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1242572.1242602 The Complex Dynamics of Collaborative Tagging], Proceedings 6th International Conference on the World Wide Web (WWW'07), Banff, Canada, pp. 211–220, ACM Press, 2007.</ref><ref>{{cite journal|doi=10.1145/1460563.1460600|last1=Fu|first1=Wai-Tat|title=Semantic imitation in social tagging|journal=ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction|year=2010|url=http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1806926}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Fu|first1=Wai-Tat|title=A Semantic Imitation Model of Social Tagging.|journal=Proceedings of the IEEE conference on Social Computing|pages=66–72|date=Aug 2009|year=2009|url=http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5283882&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D5283882}}</ref> Although there is no central controlled vocabulary to constrain the actions of individual users, the distributions of tags that describe different resources has been shown to converge over time to a stable [[power law]] distributions.<ref name="WWW07-ref" /> Once such stable distributions form, examining the [[correlation]]s between different tags can be used to construct simple [[folksonomy]] graphs, which can be efficiently partitioned to obtained a form of community or shared vocabularies.<ref name="TWEB-ref" >Valentin Robu, Harry Halpin, Hana Shepherd [http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1594173.1594176 Emergence of consensus and shared vocabularies in collaborative tagging systems], ACM Transactions on the Web (TWEB), Vol. 3(4), article 14, ACM Press, September 2009.</ref> Such vocabularies can be seen as a form of collective intelligence, emerging from the decentralised actions of a community of users. The Wall-it Project is also an example of social bookmarking.<ref>Carlos J. Costa, January 2012. {{cite web|title=Article on Wall-it project|year=2012|url=http://masteropensource.wordpress.com/2012/01/21/wall-it/}}</ref>
{{Citation
| doi = 10.1145/1460563.1460600
| last1 = Fu | first1 = Wai-Tat
| title = Semantic imitation in social tagging
| journal = ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction
| year = 2010
| url = http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1806926}}
</ref><ref>{{Citation
| last1 = Fu | first1 = Wai-Tat
| title = A Semantic Imitation Model of Social Tagging.
| journal = Proceedings of the IEEE conference on Social Computing
| pages = 66–72
| date = Aug 2009
| year = 2009
| url = http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5283882&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D5283882 }}</ref> Although there is no central controlled vocabulary to constrain the actions of individual users, the distributions of tags that describe different resources has been shown to converge over time to a stable [[power law]] distributions.<ref name="WWW07-ref" /> Once such stable distributions form, examining the [[correlation]]s between different tags can be used to construct simple [[folksonomy]] graphs, which can be efficiently partitioned to obtained a form of community or shared vocabularies.<ref name="TWEB-ref" >Valentin Robu, Harry Halpin, Hana Shepherd [http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1594173.1594176 Emergence of consensus and shared vocabularies in collaborative tagging systems], ACM Transactions on the Web (TWEB), Vol. 3(4), article 14, ACM Press, September 2009.</ref> Such vocabularies can be seen as a form of collective intelligence, emerging from the decentralised actions of a community of users. The Wall-it Project is also an example of social bookmarking.<ref>Carlos J. Costa, January 2012.
{{Citation
| title = Article on Wall-it project
| year = 2012
| url = http://masteropensource.wordpress.com/2012/01/21/wall-it/}}</ref>


=== Video games ===
=== Video games ===
Games such as ''[[The Sims]]'' Series, and ''[[Second Life]]'' are designed to be non-linear and to depend on collective intelligence for expansion. This way of sharing is gradually evolving and influencing the mindset of the current and future generations.<ref name="Weiss, A. 2005 pp. 19-23"/> For them, collective intelligence has become a norm. In Terry Flew’s discussion of [[interactivity]] in the online games environment, the ongoing interactive dialogue between users and game developers,<ref>Flew, Terry and Humphreys, Sal (2005) "Games: Technology, Industry, Culture" in Terry Flew, New Media: An Introduction (2nd edn), Oxford University Press, South Melbourne 101-114.</ref> he refers to [[Pierre Lévy (philosopher)|Pierre Levy]]’s concept of Collective Intelligence {{Harv|Levy|1998}} and argues this is active in videogames as clans or guilds in [[MMORPG]] constantly work to achieve goals. [[Henry Jenkins]] proposes that the participatory cultures emerging between games producers, media companies, and the end-users mark a fundamental shift in the nature of media production and consumption. Jenkins argues that this new participatory culture arises at the intersection of three broad new media trends.<ref>Henry Jenkins (2002) in Flew, Terry and Humphreys, Sal (2005) ''Games: Technology, Industry, Culture'' in Terry Flew, New Media: An Introduction (2nd edn), Oxford University Press, South Melbourne 101-114.</ref> Firstly, the development of new media tools/technologies enabling the creation of content. Secondly, the rise of subcultures promoting such creations, and lastly, the growth of value adding media conglomerates, which foster image, idea and narrative flow.
Games such as ''[[The Sims]]'' Series, and ''[[Second Life]]'' are designed to be non-linear and to depend on collective intelligence for expansion. This way of sharing is gradually evolving and influencing the mindset of the current and future generations.<ref name="Weiss, A. 2005 pp. 19-23"/> For them, collective intelligence has become a norm. In Terry Flew’s discussion of '[[interactivity]]' in the online games environment, the ongoing interactive dialogue between users and game developers,<ref>Flew, Terry and Humphreys, Sal (2005) "Games: Technology, Industry, Culture" in Terry Flew, New Media: An Introduction (2nd edn), Oxford University Press, South Melbourne 101-114.</ref> he refers to [[Pierre Lévy (philosopher)|Pierre Levy]]'s concept of Collective Intelligence {{Harv|Levy|1998}} and argues this is active in videogames as clans or guilds in [[MMORPG]] constantly work to achieve goals. [[Henry Jenkins]] proposes that the participatory cultures emerging between games producers, media companies, and the end-users mark a fundamental shift in the nature of media production and consumption. Jenkins argues that this new participatory culture arises at the intersection of three broad new media trends.<ref>Henry Jenkins (2002) in Flew, Terry and Humphreys, Sal (2005) ''Games: Technology, Industry, Culture'' in Terry Flew, New Media: An Introduction (2nd edn), Oxford University Press, South Melbourne 101-114.</ref> Firstly, the development of new media tools/technologies enabling the creation of content. Secondly, the rise of subcultures promoting such creations, and lastly, the growth of value adding media conglomerates, which foster image, idea and narrative flow.
Cultural theorist and online community developer, John Banks considered the contribution of online fan communities in the creation of the [[Trainz]] product. He argued that its commercial success was fundamentally dependent upon "the formation and growth of an active and vibrant online fan community that would both actively promote the product and create content- extensions and additions to the game software".<ref name="jbanks">John A.L. Banks. ''Negotiating Participatory Culture in the New Media Environment: Auran and the Trainz Online Community&nbsp;– An (Im)possible Relation'', The University of Queensland. School of English, Media Studies and Art History. MelbourneDAC2003</ref>
Cultural theorist and online community developer, John Banks considered the contribution of online fan communities in the creation of the [[Trainz]] product. He argued that its commercial success was fundamentally dependent upon "the formation and growth of an active and vibrant online fan community that would both actively promote the product and create content- extensions and additions to the game software".<ref name="jbanks">John A.L. Banks. ''Negotiating Participatory Culture in the New Media Environment: Auran and the Trainz Online Community&nbsp;– An (Im)possible Relation'', The University of Queensland. School of English, Media Studies and Art History. MelbourneDAC2003</ref>


Line 121: Line 100:


=== Stock market predictions ===
=== Stock market predictions ===
Because of the Internet's ability to rapidly convey large amounts of information throughout the world, the use of collective intelligence to predict stock prices and stock price direction has become increasingly viable. Websites aggregate stock market information that is as current as possible so professional or amateur stock analysts can publish their viewpoints, enabling amateur investors to submit their financial opinions and create an aggregate opinion. The opinion of all investor can be weighed equally so that a pivotal premise of the effective application of collective intelligence can be applied: the masses, including a broad spectrum of stock market expertise, can be utilized to more accurately predict the behavior of financial markets.
Because of the Internet's ability to rapidly convey large amounts of information throughout the world, the use of collective intelligence to predict stock prices and stock price direction has become increasingly viable. Websites aggregate stock market information that is as current as possible so professional or amateur stock analysts can publish their viewpoints, enabling amateur investors to submit their financial opinions and create an aggregate opinion. The opinion of all investor can be weighed equally so that a pivotal premise of the effective application of collective intelligence can be applied: the masses, including a broad spectrum of stock market expertise, can be utilized to more accurately predict the behavior of financial markets.<ref>{{cite journal|doi=10.1007/978-3-642-15420-1|last1=Ma|first1=Ying|last2=Li|first2=Guanyi|last3=Dong|first3=Yingsai|last4=Qin|first4=Zengchang|title=Minority Game Data Mining for Stock Market Predictions|journal=Agents and Data Mining Interaction, 6th International Workshopon Agents and Data Mining Interaction, ADMI 2010,|year=2010|url=http://icmll.buaa.edu.cn/publications/Conference%20Papers/LectureNotesCS/ADMI.pdf}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|doi=10.1007/978-3-642-23935-9_24|last1=Yu|first1=Du|last2=Dong|first2=Yingsai|last3=Qin|first3=Zengchang|last4=Wan|first4=Tao|title=Exploring Market Behaviors with Evolutionary Mixed-Games Learning Model|journal=Computational Collective Intelligence. Technologies andApplications&nbsp;– Third International Conference, ICCCI 2011,|year=2011|url=http://icmll.buaa.edu.cn/publications/Conference%20Papers/Others/ICCCI-springer.pdf}}</ref>
<ref>
{{Citation
| doi = 10.1007/978-3-642-15420-1
| last1 = Ma | first1 = Ying
| last2 = Li | first2 = Guanyi
| last3 = Dong | first3 = Yingsai
| last4 = Qin | first4 = Zengchang
| title = Minority Game Data Mining for Stock Market Predictions
| journal =Agents and Data Mining Interaction, 6th International Workshop
on Agents and Data Mining Interaction, ADMI 2010,
| year = 2010
| url = http://icmll.buaa.edu.cn/publications/Conference%20Papers/LectureNotesCS/ADMI.pdf}}
</ref><ref>
{{Citation
| doi = 10.1007/978-3-642-23935-9_24
| last1 = Yu | first1 = Du
| last2 = Dong | first2 = Yingsai
| last3 = Qin | first3 = Zengchang
| last4 = Wan | first4 = Tao
| title = Exploring Market Behaviors with Evolutionary Mixed-Games Learning Model
| journal = Computational Collective Intelligence. Technologies and
Applications&nbsp;– Third International Conference, ICCCI 2011,
| year = 2011
| url = http://icmll.buaa.edu.cn/publications/Conference%20Papers/Others/ICCCI-springer.pdf}}
</ref>


Collective intelligence underpins the [[efficient-market hypothesis]] of [[Eugene Fama]]<ref>Fama, E.F., (1970), Efficient Capital Markets: A Review of Theory and Empirical Work, Journal of Finance, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 383–417</ref>&nbsp;– although the term collective intelligence is not used explicitly in his paper. Fama cites research conducted by [[Michael Jensen]]<ref>Jensen, M.C, (1967), The Performance of Mutual Funds in the Period 1945–1964, Journal of Finance, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 389–416, 1967</ref> in which 89 out of 115 selected funds underperformed relative to the index during the period from 1955 to 1964. But after removing the loading charge (up-front fee) only 72 underperformed while after removing brokerage costs only 58 underperformed. On the basis of such evidence [[index fund]]s became popular investment vehicles using the collective intelligence of the market, rather than the judgement of professional fund managers, as an investment strategy.
Collective intelligence underpins the [[efficient-market hypothesis]] of [[Eugene Fama]]<ref>Fama, E.F., (1970), "Efficient Capital Markets: A Review of Theory and Empirical Work", ''Journal of Finance'', Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 383–417</ref>&nbsp;– although the term collective intelligence is not used explicitly in his paper. Fama cites research conducted by [[Michael Jensen]]<ref>Jensen, M.C, (1967), "The Performance of Mutual Funds in the Period 1945–1964", ''Journal of Finance'', Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 389–416, 1967</ref> in which 89 out of 115 selected funds underperformed relative to the index during the period from 1955 to 1964. But after removing the loading charge (up-front fee) only 72 underperformed while after removing brokerage costs only 58 underperformed. On the basis of such evidence [[index fund]]s became popular investment vehicles using the collective intelligence of the market, rather than the judgement of professional fund managers, as an investment strategy.


== Views ==
== Views ==
Tom Atlee reflects that, although humans have an innate ability to gather and analyze data, they are affected by culture, education and social institutions. A single person tends to make decisions motivated by self-preservation. In addition, humans lack a way to make choices that balance innovation and reality.{{Dubious|date=June 2012|How are innovation and reality opposed? Source says: But we lack nature's sophisticated ways of seeking a good "fit" between innovations and reality.}} Therefore, without collective intelligence, humans may drive themselves into extinction based on their selfish needs.<ref>
Tom Atlee reflects that, although humans have an innate ability to gather and analyze data, they are affected by culture, education and social institutions. A single person tends to make decisions motivated by self-preservation. In addition, humans lack a way to make choices that balance innovation and reality.{{Dubious|date=June 2012|How are innovation and reality opposed? Source says: But we lack nature's sophisticated ways of seeking a good "fit" between innovations and reality.}} Therefore, without collective intelligence, humans may drive themselves into extinction based on their selfish needs.<ref>Atlee, T. (2008). [http://www.communicationagents.com/tom_atlee/2008/05/15/reflections_on_the_evolution_of_choice_and_collective_intelligence.htm Reflections on the evolution of choice and collective intelligence], Retrieved 26 August 2008</ref>
Atlee, T. (2008). [http://www.communicationagents.com/tom_atlee/2008/05/15/reflections_on_the_evolution_of_choice_and_collective_intelligence.htm Reflections on the evolution of choice and collective intelligence], Retrieved 26 August 2008
</ref>


Phillip Brown and Hugh Lauder quotes Bowles and [[Herbert Gintis|Gintis]] (1976) that in order to truly define collective intelligence, it is crucial to separate ‘intelligence’ from IQism. They go on to argue that intelligence is an achievement and can only be developed if allowed to. For example, earlier on, groups from the lower levels of society are severely restricted from aggregating and pooling their intelligence. This is because the elites fear that the collective intelligence would convince the people to rebel. If there is no such capacity and relations, there would be no infrastructure on which collective intelligence is built {{Harv|Brown|Lauder|2000|p=230}}. This reflects how powerful collective intelligence can be if left to develop.
Phillip Brown and Hugh Lauder quotes Bowles and [[Herbert Gintis|Gintis]] (1976) that in order to truly define collective intelligence, it is crucial to separate ‘intelligence’ from IQism. They go on to argue that intelligence is an achievement and can only be developed if allowed to. For example, earlier on, groups from the lower levels of society are severely restricted from aggregating and pooling their intelligence. This is because the elites fear that the collective intelligence would convince the people to rebel. If there is no such capacity and relations, there would be no infrastructure on which collective intelligence is built {{Harv|Brown|Lauder|2000|p=230}}. This reflects how powerful collective intelligence can be if left to develop.
Line 227: Line 179:
== Bibliography ==
== Bibliography ==
{{refbegin|2}}
{{refbegin|2}}
* {{Cite book | ref=harv
* {{cite book | ref=harv
| last=Brown | first=Philip
| last=Brown | first=Philip
| last2=Lauder | first2=Hugh
| last2=Lauder | first2=Hugh
Line 236: Line 188:
| publisher=Oxford University Press | location=New York
| publisher=Oxford University Press | location=New York
}}
}}
* {{Cite book | ref=harv
* {{cite book | ref=harv
| last=Brown | first=Philip
| last=Brown | first=Philip
| last2=Lauder | first2=Hugh
| last2=Lauder | first2=Hugh
Line 245: Line 197:
| publisher=Palgrave
| publisher=Palgrave
}}
}}
* CIA. (2008). [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/xx.html ''The World Factbook'']. (accessed 3 September 2008)
* CIA. (2008). [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/xx.html ''The World Factbook'']. (accessed 3 September 2008)
* {{Cite book | ref=harv
* {{cite book | ref=harv
| last=Flew | first=Terry
| last=Flew | first=Terry
| year= 2008
| year= 2008
Line 252: Line 204:
| publisher=Oxford University Press | location=Melbourne
| publisher=Oxford University Press | location=Melbourne
}}
}}
* {{Cite book | ref=harv
* {{cite book | ref=harv
| last=Hofstadter | first=Douglas
| last=Hofstadter | first=Douglas
| author-link=Douglas Hofstadter
| author-link=Douglas Hofstadter
Line 261: Line 213:
* Leiner, Barry, Cerf, Vinton, Clark, David, Kahn, Robert, Kleinrock, Leonard, Lynch, Daniel, Postel, Jon, Roberts, Larry and Wolff, Stephen. 2003. [http://www.isoc.org/internet/history/brief.shtml ''A Brief History of the Internet'']. Version 3.32 (accessed 3 September 2008)
* Leiner, Barry, Cerf, Vinton, Clark, David, Kahn, Robert, Kleinrock, Leonard, Lynch, Daniel, Postel, Jon, Roberts, Larry and Wolff, Stephen. 2003. [http://www.isoc.org/internet/history/brief.shtml ''A Brief History of the Internet'']. Version 3.32 (accessed 3 September 2008)
* Noubel, Jean-François; (2004, rev. 2007), "[http://publishing.yudu.com/Library/Arswi/CollectiveIntelligen/resources/index.htm?skipFlashCheck=true Collective Intelligence: the Invisible Revolution]"
* Noubel, Jean-François; (2004, rev. 2007), "[http://publishing.yudu.com/Library/Arswi/CollectiveIntelligen/resources/index.htm?skipFlashCheck=true Collective Intelligence: the Invisible Revolution]"
* {{Cite book | ref=harv
* {{cite book | ref=harv
| last=Por | first=George
| last=Por | first=George
| year=1995
| year=1995
Line 269: Line 221:
| publisher=New Leaders Press | location=San Francisco
| publisher=New Leaders Press | location=San Francisco
}}
}}
* {{Cite book | ref=harv
* {{cite book | ref=harv
| last=Rheingold | first=Howard
| last=Rheingold | first=Howard
| author-link=Howard Rheingold
| author-link=Howard Rheingold
Line 276: Line 228:
| publisher=Basic Books
| publisher=Basic Books
}}
}}
* {{Cite book | ref=harv
* {{cite book | ref=harv
| last=Ron | first=Sun
| last=Ron | first=Sun
| year=1979
| year=1979
Line 282: Line 234:
| publisher=Cambridge University Press
| publisher=Cambridge University Press
}}
}}
* {{Cite journal | ref=harv
* {{cite journal | ref=harv
| last=Riedl | first=Christoph
| last=Riedl | first=Christoph
| last2=Blohm | first2=Ivo
| last2=Blohm | first2=Ivo
Line 290: Line 242:
| title=Rating Scales for Collective Intelligence in Innovation Communities: Why Quick and Easy Decision Making Does Not Get It Right | url=http://home.in.tum.de/~riedlc/res/RiedlEtAl2010-ICIS.pdf
| title=Rating Scales for Collective Intelligence in Innovation Communities: Why Quick and Easy Decision Making Does Not Get It Right | url=http://home.in.tum.de/~riedlc/res/RiedlEtAl2010-ICIS.pdf
}}
}}
* {{Cite journal | ref=harv
* {{cite journal | ref=harv
| last=Leimeister | first=Jan Marco
| last=Leimeister | first=Jan Marco
| year=2010
| year=2010
Line 296: Line 248:
| url=http://aisel.aisnet.org/bise/vol2/iss4/6/''Collective
| url=http://aisel.aisnet.org/bise/vol2/iss4/6/''Collective
}}
}}
* {{Cite paper | ref=harv
* {{cite paper | ref=harv
| last=Roy Chowdhury | first=Soudip
| last=Roy Chowdhury | first=Soudip
| last2=Rodriguez | first2=Carlos
| last2=Rodriguez | first2=Carlos
Line 304: Line 256:
| title=Wisdom-aware computing: on the interactive recommendation of composition knowledge | url=http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1987701
| title=Wisdom-aware computing: on the interactive recommendation of composition knowledge | url=http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1987701
}}
}}
*Stephen R. Diasio, Nuria Agell, "The evolution of expertise in decision support technologies: A challenge for organizations," cscwd, pp.&nbsp;692–697, 2009 13th International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design, 2009. http://www.computer.org/portal/web/csdl/doi/10.1109/CSCWD.2009.4968139
* Stephen R. Diasio, Nuria Agell, "The evolution of expertise in decision support technologies: A challenge for organizations," cscwd, pp.&nbsp;692–697, 2009 13th International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design, 2009. http://www.computer.org/portal/web/csdl/doi/10.1109/CSCWD.2009.4968139
* {{cite book|title=Uses and Abuses of Intelligence|editor1-first=Jean|editor1-last=Raven |year=2008|publisher=Royal Fireworks Press|location=Unionville (NY)|isbn=978-0-89824-356-7|laysummary=http://www.rfwp.com/3567.htm|laydate=6 July 2010|ref=harv}}

* {{Cite book |title=Uses and Abuses of Intelligence |editor1-first=Jean |editor1-last=Raven |year=2008 |publisher=Royal Fireworks Press |location=Unionville (NY) |isbn=978-0-89824-356-7 |laysummary=http://www.rfwp.com/3567.htm |laydate=6 July 2010 |ref=harv }}
* Kaiser, C., Kröckel, J., Bodendorf, F. (2010). [http://www.computer.org/portal/web/csdl/doi/10.1109/HICSS.2010.356 Swarm Intelligence for Analyzing Opinions in Online Communities]. Proceedings of the 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pp.&nbsp;1–9.
* Kaiser, C., Kröckel, J., Bodendorf, F. (2010). [http://www.computer.org/portal/web/csdl/doi/10.1109/HICSS.2010.356 Swarm Intelligence for Analyzing Opinions in Online Communities]. Proceedings of the 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pp.&nbsp;1–9.
{{refend}}
{{refend}}
Line 320: Line 271:
* [[Hideyasu Sasaki]] (2010). [http://sites.google.com/site/hsasakilab/Home/ijoci/ijoci-vol-1-no-1 International Journal of Organizational and Collective Intelligence (IJOCI)], vol 1 No. 1.
* [[Hideyasu Sasaki]] (2010). [http://sites.google.com/site/hsasakilab/Home/ijoci/ijoci-vol-1-no-1 International Journal of Organizational and Collective Intelligence (IJOCI)], vol 1 No. 1.
* Olivier Zara, [http://www.axiopole.com/pdf/Managing_collective_intelligence.pdf ''Managing Collective Intelligence, Toward a New Corporate Governance''], Axiopole editions, 2004
* Olivier Zara, [http://www.axiopole.com/pdf/Managing_collective_intelligence.pdf ''Managing Collective Intelligence, Toward a New Corporate Governance''], Axiopole editions, 2004
*[http://collectiveintel.net The collective intelligence framework], open-source framework for leveraging collective intelligence
* [http://collectiveintel.net The collective intelligence framework], open-source framework for leveraging collective intelligence
* Raimund Minichbauer (2012). [http://eipcp.net/transversal/0112/minichbauer/en Fragmented Collectives. On the Politics of "Collective Intelligence" in Electronic Networks], transversal 01 12, 'unsettling knowledges'
* Raimund Minichbauer (2012). [http://eipcp.net/transversal/0112/minichbauer/en Fragmented Collectives. On the Politics of "Collective Intelligence" in Electronic Networks], transversal 01 12, 'unsettling knowledges'



Revision as of 19:56, 7 February 2014

Types of collective intelligence

Collective intelligence is shared or group intelligence that emerges from the collaboration, collective efforts, and competition of many individuals and appears in consensus decision making. The term appears in sociobiology, political science and in context of mass peer review and crowdsourcing applications. It may involve consensus, social capital and formalisms such as voting systems, social media and other means of quantifying mass activity. Collective IQ is a measure of collective intelligence, although it is often used interchangeably with the term collective intelligence.

Collective intelligence has also been attributed to bacteria[1] and animals.[2]

It can be understood as an emergent property from the synergies among: 1) data-information-knowledge; 2) software-hardware; and 3) experts (those with new insights as well as recognized authorities) that continually learns from feedback to produce just-in-time knowledge for better decisions than these three elements acting alone.[3] Or more narrowly as an emergent property between people and ways of processing information.[4] This notion of collective intelligence is referred to as Symbiotic intelligence by Norman Lee Johnson.[5] The concept is used in sociology, business, computer science and mass communications: it also appears in science fiction.

Pierre Lévy defines collective intelligence as, "It is a form of universally distributed intelligence, constantly enhanced, coordinated in real time, and resulting in the effective mobilization of skills. I'll add the following indispensable characteristic to this definition: The basis and goal of collective intelligence is mutual recognition and enrichment of individuals rather than the cult of fetishized or hypostatized communities." [6]

According to researchers Lévy and Kerckhove, it refers to capacity of networked ICTs (Information communication technologies) to enhance the collective pool of social knowledge by simultaneously expanding the extent of human interactions.[7]

Collective intelligence strongly contributes to the shift of knowledge and power from the individual to the collective. According to Eric S. Raymond (1998) and JC Herz (2005), open source intelligence will eventually generate superior outcomes to knowledge generated by proprietary software developed within corporations (Flew 2008).

Meanwhile media theorist Henry Jenkins sees collective intelligence as an 'lternative source of media power', which is closely related to convergence culture. He draws attention to education and the way people are learning to participate in such knowledge cultures outside of formal learning settings. Henry Jenkins criticizes schools which promote 'autonomous problem solvers and self-contained learners' while remaining hostile to learning through the means of collective intelligence.[8]

Ultimately, both Pierre Lévy (2007) and Henry Jenkins (2008) support the claim that collective intelligence is important for the process of democratization, as it is interlinked with knowledge-based culture, which is sustained by collective idea sharing, and thus contributes to a better understanding of diverse society among different actors.

Writers who have influenced the idea of collective intelligence include Douglas Hofstadter (1979), Peter Russell (1983), Tom Atlee (1993), Pierre Lévy (1994), Howard Bloom (1995), Francis Heylighen (1995), Douglas Engelbart, Cliff Joslyn, Ron Dembo, Gottfried Mayer-Kress (2003).

History

A precursor of the concept is found in entomologist William Morton Wheeler's observation that seemingly independent individuals can cooperate so closely as to become indistinguishable from a single organism (1911).[9] Wheeler saw this collaborative process at work in ants that acted like the cells of a single beast he called a "superorganism".

In 1912 Émile Durkheim identified society as the sole source of human logical thought. He argued, in "The Elementary Forms of Religious Life" that society constitutes a higher intelligence because it transcends the individual over space and time.[10] Other antecedents are Vladimir Vernadsky's concept of "noosphere" and H.G. Wells's concept of "world brain" (see also the term "global brain"). Peter Russell, Elisabet Sahtouris, and Barbara Marx Hubbard (originator of the term "conscious evolution" [citation needed]) are inspired by the visions of a noosphere – a transcendent, rapidly evolving collective intelligence – an informational cortex of the planet. The notion has more recently been examined by the philosopher Pierre Lévy. Doug Engelbart began using the term 'Collective IQ' in the mid 1990s as a measure of collective intelligence, to focus attention on the opportunity for business and society to pro-actively raise their Collective IQ[11]

Dimensions

Howard Bloom has discussed mass behavior—collective behavior from the level of quarks to the level of bacterial, plant, animal, and human societies. He stresses the biological adaptations that have turned most of this earth's living beings into components of what he calls "a learning machine". In 1986 Bloom combined the concepts of apoptosis, parallel distributed processing, group selection, and the superorganism to produce a theory of how collective intelligence works.[12] Later he showed how the collective intelligences of competing bacterial colonies and human societies can be explained in terms of computer-generated "complex adaptive systems" and the "genetic algorithms", concepts pioneered by John Holland.[13]

Bloom traced the evolution of collective intelligence to our bacterial ancestors 1 billion years ago and demonstrated how a multi-species intelligence has worked since the beginning of life.[13] Ant societies exhibit more intelligence, in terms of technology, than any other animal except for humans and co-operate in keeping livestock, for example aphids for "milking". Leaf cutters care for fungi and carry leaves to feed the fungi.

David Skrbina[14] cites the concept of a 'group mind' as being derived from Plato's concept of panpsychism (that mind or consciousness is omnipresent and exists in all matter). He develops the concept of a ‘group mind’ as articulated by Thomas Hobbes in "Leviathan" and Fechner's arguments for a collective consciousness of mankind. He cites Durkheim as the most notable advocate of a "collective consciousness" and Teilhard de Chardin as a thinker who has developed the philosophical implications of the group mind.

Tom Atlee focuses primarily on humans and on work to upgrade what Howard Bloom calls "the group IQ". Atlee feels that collective intelligence can be encouraged "to overcome 'groupthink' and individual cognitive bias in order to allow a collective to cooperate on one process—while achieving enhanced intellectual performance." George Pór defined the collective intelligence phenomenon as "the capacity of human communities to evolve towards higher order complexity and harmony, through such innovation mechanisms as differentiation and integration, competition and collaboration."[15] Atlee and Pór state that "collective intelligence also involves achieving a single focus of attention and standard of metrics which provide an appropriate threshold of action". Their approach is rooted in Scientific Community Metaphor.

Atlee and Pór suggest that the field of collective intelligence should primarily be seen as a human enterprise in which mind-sets, a willingness to share and an openness to the value of distributed intelligence for the common good are paramount, though group theory and artificial intelligence have something to offer. Individuals who respect collective intelligence are confident of their own abilities and recognize that the whole is indeed greater than the sum of any individual parts.[citation needed] Maximizing collective intelligence relies on the ability of an organization to accept and develop "The Golden Suggestion", which is any potentially useful input from any member. Groupthink often hampers collective intelligence by limiting input to a select few individuals or filtering potential Golden Suggestions without fully developing them to implementation.

Robert David Steele Vivas in The New Craft of Intelligence portrayed all citizens as "intelligence minutemen," drawing only on legal and ethical sources of information, able to create a "public intelligence" that keeps public officials and corporate managers honest, turning the concept of "national intelligence" (previously concerned about spies and secrecy) on its head.

According to Don Tapscott and Anthony D. Williams, collective intelligence is mass collaboration. In order for this concept to happen, four principles need to exist;

Openness
Sharing ideas and intellectual property: though these resources provide the edge over competitors more benefits accrue from allowing others to share ideas and gain significant improvement and scrutiny through collaboration.
Peering
Horizontal organization as with the 'opening up' of the Linux program where users are free to modify and develop it provided that they make it available for others. Peering succeeds because it encourages self-organization – a style of production that works more effectively than hierarchical management for certain tasks.
Sharing
Companies have started to share some ideas while maintaining some degree of control over others, like potential and critical patent rights. Limiting all intellectual property shuts out opportunities, while sharing some expands markets and brings out products faster.
Acting Globally
The advancement in communication technology has prompted the rise of global companies at low overhead costs. The internet is widespread, therefore a globally integrated company has no geographical boundaries and may access new markets, ideas and technology.[16]

Examples

The Global Futures Collective Intelligence System (GFIS) at www.themp.org was created by The Millennium Project in 2012.

Political parties mobilize large numbers of people to form policy, select candidates and finance and run election campaigns. Knowledge focusing through various voting methods allows perspectives to converge through the assumption that uninformed voting is to some degree random and can be filtered from the decision process leaving only a residue of informed consensus. Critics point out that often bad ideas, misunderstandings, and misconceptions are widely held, and that structuring of the decision process must favor experts who are presumably less prone to random or misinformed voting in a given context.[citation needed]

Military united, trade unions, and corporations satisfy some definitions of CI — the most rigorous definition would require a capacity to respond to very arbitrary conditions without orders or guidance from "law" or "customers" to constrain actions.Online advertising companies are using collective intelligence to bypass traditional marketing and creative agencies.[citation needed]

In Learner generated context a group of users marshal resources to create an ecology that meets their needs often (but not only) in relation to the co-configuration, co-creation and co-design of a particular learning space that allows learners to create their own context.[17][18][19] Learner generated contexts represent an ad hoc community that facilitates coordination of collective action in a network of trust. An example of Learner generated context is found on the Internet when collaborative users pool knowledge in a "shared intelligence space" such as Wikipedia. As the Internet has developed so has the concept of CI as a shared public forum. The global accessibility and availability of the Internet has allowed more people than ever to contribute and access ideas. (Flew 2008)

Improvisational actors also experience a type of collective intelligence which they term 'Group Mind'. A further example of collective intelligence is found in idea competitions.[20]

Specialized information site such as Digital Photography Review or Camera Labs is an example of collective intelligence. Anyone who has an access to the internet can contribute to distributing their knowledge over the world through the specialized information sites.

Quora The online service Quora is a portal where anyone can ask any question and anyone can answer. The questions are categorized and tagged for easier navigation. A question about, for example, Apple’s CEO Tim Cook will be found in the Apple and CEO category and Apple and Tim Cook will be an individual tag. If someone is wondering, for example, ‘what it is like to work with Tim Cook’ the answer to the question required private or intimate information that is (by definition) not publicly available. Users can answer with their name or anonymously. Obtaining this private information is, of course, valuable to gain an insight or to look behind the scenes.

Often questions refer to first hand experiences and the answers are often carefully curated eposées and detailed logs of it. It gives the user the ability to gain a detailed insights and information is thus democratized. The collection of experiences is a perfect example of collective intelligence.

Mathematical techniques

One measure sometimes applied, especially by more artificial intelligence focused theorists, is a "collective intelligence quotient" (or "cooperation quotient")—which presumably can be measured like the "individual" intelligence quotient (IQ)—thus making it possible to determine the marginal extra intelligence added by each new individual participating in the collective, thus using metrics to avoid the hazards of group think and stupidity.

In 2001, Tadeusz (Ted) Szuba from the AGH University in Poland proposed a formal model for the phenomenon of collective intelligence. It is assumed to be an unconscious, random, parallel, and distributed computational process, run in mathematical logic by the social structure.[21]

In this model, beings and information are modeled as abstract information molecules carrying expressions of mathematical logic. They are quasi-randomly displacing due to their interaction with their environments with their intended displacements. Their interaction in abstract computational space creates multi-thread inference process which we perceive as collective intelligence. Thus, a non-Turing model of computation is used. This theory allows simple formal definition of collective intelligence as the property of social structure and seems to be working well for a wide spectrum of beings, from bacterial colonies up to human social structures. Collective intelligence considered as a specific computational process is providing a straightforward explanation of several social phenomena. For this model of collective intelligence, the formal definition of IQS (IQ Social) was proposed and was defined as "the probability function over the time and domain of N-element inferences which are reflecting inference activity of the social structure." While IQS seems to be computationally hard, modeling of social structure in terms of a computational process as described above gives a chance for approximation. Prospective applications are optimization of companies through the maximization of their IQS, and the analysis of drug resistance against collective intelligence of bacterial colonies.[21]

Digital media

New media are often associated with the promotion and enhancement of collective intelligence. The ability of new media to easily store and retrieve information, predominantly through databases and the Internet, allows for it to be shared without difficulty. Thus, through interaction with new media, knowledge easily passes between sources (Flew 2008) resulting in a form of collective intelligence. The use of interactive new media, particularly the internet, promotes online interaction and this distribution of knowledge between users.

Francis Heylighen, Valentin Turchin, and Gottfried Mayer-Kress are among those who view collective intelligence through the lens of computer science and cybernetics. In their view, the Internet enables collective intelligence at the widest, planetary scale, thus facilitating the emergence of a Global brain. The developer of the World Wide Web, Tim Berners-Lee, aimed to promote sharing and publishing of information globally. Later his employer opened up the technology for free use. In the early ‘90s, the Internet’s potential was still untapped, until the mid-1990s when ‘critical mass’, as termed by the head of the Advanced Research Project Agency (ARPA), Dr. J.C.R. Licklider, demanded more accessibility and utility.[22] The driving force of this form of collective intelligence[which?] is the digitization of information and communication. Henry Jenkins, a key theorist of new media and media convergence draws on the theory that collective intelligence can be attributed to media convergence and participatory culture (Flew 2008). He criticizes contemporary education for failing to incorporate online trends of collective problem solving into the classroom, stating “whereas a collective intelligence community encourages ownership of work as a group, schools grade individuals”. Jenkins argues that interaction within a knowledge community builds vital skills for young people, and teamwork through collective intelligence communities contribute to the development of such skills. Collective intelligence is not merely a quantitative contribution of information from all cultures, it is also qualitative.

Levy and de Kerckhove consider CI from a mass communications perspective, focusing on the ability of networked information and communication technologies to enhance the community knowledge pool. They suggest that these communications tools enable humans to interact and to share and collaborate with both ease and speed (Flew 2008). With the development of the Internet and its widespread use, the opportunity to contribute to community-based knowledge forums[clarification needed], such as Wikipedia, is greater than ever before. These computer networks give participating users the opportunity to store and to retrieve knowledge through the collective access to these databases and allow them to "harness the hive" (Raymond 1998; JC Herz 2005 in Flew 2008)[citation needed]. Researchers[23] at the MIT Center for Collective Intelligence research and explore collective intelligence of groups of people and computers.

In this context collective intelligence is often confused with shared knowledge. The former is knowledge that is generally available to all members of a community while the latter is information known by all members of a community.[24] Collective intelligence as represented by Web 2.0 has less user engagement than collaborative intelligence. An art project using Web 2.0 platforms is "Shared Galaxy", an experiment developed by an anonymous artist to create a collective identity that shows up as one person on several platforms like MySpace, Facebook, YouTube and Second Life. The password is written in the profiles and the accounts named "Shared Galaxy" are open to be used by anyone. In this way many take part in being one.[citation needed]

Growth of the Internet and mobile telecom has also produced "swarming" or "rendezvous" events that enable meetings or even dates on demand. The full impact has yet to be felt but the anti-globalization movement, for example, relies heavily on e-mail, cell phones, pagers, SMS and other means of organizing. Atlee discusses the connections between these events and the political views that drive them.[citation needed] The Indymedia organization does this in a more journalistic way. Such resources could combine into a form of collective intelligence accountable only to the current participants yet with some strong moral or linguistic guidance from generations of contributors – or even take on a more obviously democratic form to advance shared goals.

Social bookmarking

In social bookmarking (also called collaborative tagging), users assign tags to resources shared with other users, which gives rise to a type of information organisation that emerges from this crowdsourcing process. The resulting information structure can be seen as reflecting the collective knowledge (or collective intelligence) of a community of users and is commonly called a "Folksonomy", and the process can be captured by models of collaborative tagging.

Recent research using data from the social bookmarking website Delicious, has shown that collaborative tagging systems exhibit a form of complex systems (or self-organizing) dynamics.[25][26][27] Although there is no central controlled vocabulary to constrain the actions of individual users, the distributions of tags that describe different resources has been shown to converge over time to a stable power law distributions.[25] Once such stable distributions form, examining the correlations between different tags can be used to construct simple folksonomy graphs, which can be efficiently partitioned to obtained a form of community or shared vocabularies.[28] Such vocabularies can be seen as a form of collective intelligence, emerging from the decentralised actions of a community of users. The Wall-it Project is also an example of social bookmarking.[29]

Video games

Games such as The Sims Series, and Second Life are designed to be non-linear and to depend on collective intelligence for expansion. This way of sharing is gradually evolving and influencing the mindset of the current and future generations.[22] For them, collective intelligence has become a norm. In Terry Flew’s discussion of 'interactivity' in the online games environment, the ongoing interactive dialogue between users and game developers,[30] he refers to Pierre Levy's concept of Collective Intelligence (Levy 1998) and argues this is active in videogames as clans or guilds in MMORPG constantly work to achieve goals. Henry Jenkins proposes that the participatory cultures emerging between games producers, media companies, and the end-users mark a fundamental shift in the nature of media production and consumption. Jenkins argues that this new participatory culture arises at the intersection of three broad new media trends.[31] Firstly, the development of new media tools/technologies enabling the creation of content. Secondly, the rise of subcultures promoting such creations, and lastly, the growth of value adding media conglomerates, which foster image, idea and narrative flow. Cultural theorist and online community developer, John Banks considered the contribution of online fan communities in the creation of the Trainz product. He argued that its commercial success was fundamentally dependent upon "the formation and growth of an active and vibrant online fan community that would both actively promote the product and create content- extensions and additions to the game software".[32]

The increase in user created content and interactivity gives rise to issues of control over the game itself and ownership of the player-created content. This gives rise to fundamental legal issues, highlighted by Lessig[33] and Bray and Konsynski,[34] such as Intellectual Property and property ownership rights.

Gosney extends this issue of Collective Intelligence in videogames one step further in his discussion of Alternate Reality Gaming. This genre, he describes as an "across-media game that deliberately blurs the line between the in-game and out-of-game experiences"[35] as events that happen outside the game reality "reach out" into the player’s lives in order to bring them together. Solving the game requires "the collective and collaborative efforts of multiple players"; thus the issue of collective and collaborative team play is essential to ARG. Gosney argues that the Alternate Reality genre of gaming dictates an unprecedented level of collaboration and "collective intelligence" in order to solve the mystery of the game.

Stock market predictions

Because of the Internet's ability to rapidly convey large amounts of information throughout the world, the use of collective intelligence to predict stock prices and stock price direction has become increasingly viable. Websites aggregate stock market information that is as current as possible so professional or amateur stock analysts can publish their viewpoints, enabling amateur investors to submit their financial opinions and create an aggregate opinion. The opinion of all investor can be weighed equally so that a pivotal premise of the effective application of collective intelligence can be applied: the masses, including a broad spectrum of stock market expertise, can be utilized to more accurately predict the behavior of financial markets.[36][37]

Collective intelligence underpins the efficient-market hypothesis of Eugene Fama[38] – although the term collective intelligence is not used explicitly in his paper. Fama cites research conducted by Michael Jensen[39] in which 89 out of 115 selected funds underperformed relative to the index during the period from 1955 to 1964. But after removing the loading charge (up-front fee) only 72 underperformed while after removing brokerage costs only 58 underperformed. On the basis of such evidence index funds became popular investment vehicles using the collective intelligence of the market, rather than the judgement of professional fund managers, as an investment strategy.

Views

Tom Atlee reflects that, although humans have an innate ability to gather and analyze data, they are affected by culture, education and social institutions. A single person tends to make decisions motivated by self-preservation. In addition, humans lack a way to make choices that balance innovation and reality.[dubious ] Therefore, without collective intelligence, humans may drive themselves into extinction based on their selfish needs.[40]

Phillip Brown and Hugh Lauder quotes Bowles and Gintis (1976) that in order to truly define collective intelligence, it is crucial to separate ‘intelligence’ from IQism. They go on to argue that intelligence is an achievement and can only be developed if allowed to. For example, earlier on, groups from the lower levels of society are severely restricted from aggregating and pooling their intelligence. This is because the elites fear that the collective intelligence would convince the people to rebel. If there is no such capacity and relations, there would be no infrastructure on which collective intelligence is built (Brown & Lauder 2000, p. 230). This reflects how powerful collective intelligence can be if left to develop.

Research performed by Tapscott and Williams has provided a few examples of the benefits of collective intelligence to business:

Talent Utilization
At the rate technology is changing, no firm can fully keep up in the innovations needed to compete. Instead, smart firms are drawing on the power of mass collaboration to involve participation of the people they could not employ.
Demand Creation
Firms can create a new market for complementary goods by engaging in open source community.
Costs Reduction
Mass collaboration can help to reduce costs dramatically. Firms can release a specific software or product to be evaluated or debugged by online communities. The results will be more personal, robust and error-free products created in a short amount of time and costs.[16]

Skeptics, especially those critical of artificial intelligence and more inclined to believe that risk of bodily harm and bodily action are the basis of all unity between people, are more likely to emphasize the capacity of a group to take action and withstand harm as one fluid mass mobilization, shrugging off harms the way a body shrugs off the loss of a few cells. This strain of thought is most obvious in the anti-globalization movement and characterized by the works of John Zerzan, Carol Moore, and Starhawk, who typically shun academics. These theorists are more likely to refer to ecological and collective wisdom and to the role of consensus process in making ontological distinctions than to any form of "intelligence" as such, which they often argue does not exist, or is mere "cleverness".

Harsh critics of artificial intelligence on ethical grounds are likely to promote collective wisdom-building methods, such as the new tribalists and the Gaians. Whether these can be said to be collective intelligence systems is an open question. Some, e.g. Bill Joy, simply wish to avoid any form of autonomous artificial intelligence and seem willing to work on rigorous collective intelligence in order to remove any possible niche for AI.

See also

Notes and references

  1. ^ Ngoc Thanh Nguyen (25 July 2011). Transactions on Computational Collective Intelligence III. Springer. p. 63. ISBN 978-3-642-19967-7. Retrieved 11 June 2013.
  2. ^ Ngoc Thanh Nguyen (25 July 2011). Transactions on Computational Collective Intelligence III. Springer. p. 69. ISBN 978-3-642-19967-7. Retrieved 11 June 2013.
  3. ^ Glenn, Jerome C. Collective Intelligence – One of the Next Big Things, Futura 4/2009, Finnish Society for Futures Studies, Helsinki, Finland
  4. ^ Glenn, Jerome C. Chapter 5, 2008 State of the Future. The Millennium Project, Washington, DC 2008
  5. ^ Norman Lee Johnson, Collective Science site
  6. ^ Pierre Lévy, Collective Intelligence: Mankind's Emerging World in Cyberspace, 1994, p. 13
  7. ^ Flew, Terry New Media: An Introduction. Oxford University Press, 2007, p. 21
  8. ^ Jenkins, Henry Convergence Culture: Where old and new media collide. New York: New York University Press, 2006, p. 259
  9. ^ Its source can be found in this link http://skccblog.tistory.com/716. wroten by story teller who belongs to SK C&C, story teller explains history of collective intelligence. also, it mentioned principle of collective intelligence. especially, it says William Morton Wheeler studied it at first time. The title is 'collective intelligence that made us who are smarter than me'
  10. ^ Émile Durkheim, The Elementary Forms of Religious Life, 1912.
  11. ^ Engelbart's 1994 definition of 'Collective IQ' – found on Slide 4
  12. ^ Howard Bloom, The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History, 1995
  13. ^ a b Howard Bloom, Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bang to the 21st Century, 2000
  14. ^ Skrbina, D., 2001, Participation, Organization, and Mind: Toward a Participatory Worldview, ch. 8, Doctoral Thesis, Centre for Action Research in Professional Practice, School of Management, University of Bath: England
  15. ^ George Pór, Blog of Collective Intelligence
  16. ^ a b Tapscott, D., & Williams, A. D. (2008). Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything, USA: Penguin Group
  17. ^ Luckin, R., du Boulay, B., Smith, H., Underwood, J., Fitzpatrick, G., Holmberg, J., Kerawalla, L., Tunley, H., Brewster, D. and Pearce, D. (2005), 'Using Mobile Technology to Create Flexible Learning Contexts '. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 22.
  18. ^ Luckin, R. (2006), Understanding Learning Contexts as Ecologies of Resources: From the Zone of Proximal Development to Learner Generated Contexts. Paper presented at the Proceedings of World Conference on Elearning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2006.
  19. ^ Luckin, R., Shurville, S. and Browne, T. (2007), 'Initiating elearning by stealth, participation and consultation in a late majority institution'. Organisational Transformation and Social Change, 3, 4, 317–332.
  20. ^ Jan Marco Leimeister, Michael Huber, Ulrich Bretschneider, Helmut Krcmar (2009): Leveraging Crowdsourcing: Activation-Supporting Components for IT-Based Ideas Competition. In: Journal of Management Information Systems (2009), Volume: 26, Issue: 1, Publisher: M.E. Sharpe Inc., Pages: 197–224, ISSN: 07421222, doi:10.2753/MIS0742-1222260108 [1], Winfried Ebner; Jan Marco Leimeister; Helmut Krcmar (2009): Community Engineering for Innovations – The Ideas Competition as a method to nurture a Virtual Community for Innovations. In: R&D Management, 39 (4),pp 342–356 doi:10.1111/j.1467-9310.2009.00564.x [2]
  21. ^ a b Szuba T., Computational Collective Intelligence, 420 pages, Wiley NY, 2001
  22. ^ a b Weiss, A. (2005). The Power of Collective Intelligence. Collective Intelligence, pp. 19–23
  23. ^ MIT Center for Collective Intelligence. Cci.mit.edu. Retrieved on 2013-07-13.
  24. ^ Jenkins, H. 2006. Fans, Bloggers and Gamers: Exploring Participatory Culture. New York: New York University Press.
  25. ^ a b Harry Halpin, Valentin Robu, Hana Shepherd The Complex Dynamics of Collaborative Tagging, Proceedings 6th International Conference on the World Wide Web (WWW'07), Banff, Canada, pp. 211–220, ACM Press, 2007.
  26. ^ Fu, Wai-Tat (2010). "Semantic imitation in social tagging". ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction. doi:10.1145/1460563.1460600.
  27. ^ Fu, Wai-Tat (August 2009). "A Semantic Imitation Model of Social Tagging". Proceedings of the IEEE conference on Social Computing: 66–72.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  28. ^ Valentin Robu, Harry Halpin, Hana Shepherd Emergence of consensus and shared vocabularies in collaborative tagging systems, ACM Transactions on the Web (TWEB), Vol. 3(4), article 14, ACM Press, September 2009.
  29. ^ Carlos J. Costa, January 2012. "Article on Wall-it project". 2012.
  30. ^ Flew, Terry and Humphreys, Sal (2005) "Games: Technology, Industry, Culture" in Terry Flew, New Media: An Introduction (2nd edn), Oxford University Press, South Melbourne 101-114.
  31. ^ Henry Jenkins (2002) in Flew, Terry and Humphreys, Sal (2005) Games: Technology, Industry, Culture in Terry Flew, New Media: An Introduction (2nd edn), Oxford University Press, South Melbourne 101-114.
  32. ^ John A.L. Banks. Negotiating Participatory Culture in the New Media Environment: Auran and the Trainz Online Community – An (Im)possible Relation, The University of Queensland. School of English, Media Studies and Art History. MelbourneDAC2003
  33. ^ L, Lessig,(2006)Code Version 2.0 (2nd ed.). New York: Basic Books.
  34. ^ Bray, DA & Konsynski, BR, 2007, Virtual Worlds, Virtual Economies, Virtual Institutions, viewed 10 October 2008, p. 1-27 <http://ssrn.com/abstract=962501>
  35. ^ Gosney, J.W, 2005, Beyond Reality: A Guide to Alternate Reality Gaming, Thomson Course Technology, Boston.
  36. ^ Ma, Ying; Li, Guanyi; Dong, Yingsai; Qin, Zengchang (2010). "Minority Game Data Mining for Stock Market Predictions" (PDF). Agents and Data Mining Interaction, 6th International Workshopon Agents and Data Mining Interaction, ADMI 2010,. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-15420-1.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)
  37. ^ Yu, Du; Dong, Yingsai; Qin, Zengchang; Wan, Tao (2011). "Exploring Market Behaviors with Evolutionary Mixed-Games Learning Model" (PDF). Computational Collective Intelligence. Technologies andApplications – Third International Conference, ICCCI 2011,. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-23935-9_24.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)
  38. ^ Fama, E.F., (1970), "Efficient Capital Markets: A Review of Theory and Empirical Work", Journal of Finance, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 383–417
  39. ^ Jensen, M.C, (1967), "The Performance of Mutual Funds in the Period 1945–1964", Journal of Finance, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 389–416, 1967
  40. ^ Atlee, T. (2008). Reflections on the evolution of choice and collective intelligence, Retrieved 26 August 2008

Bibliography

External links