In a previous post about aggregation of information I noted the role of the administrator, as someone who will moderate the discourse. Teut Weidemann in his interview remarked that “…total control will destroy a community pretty fast”. So indirect control actually means letting the community takes its own course and interfere only when things really go out of hand.

Learning from software

But indirect control has one more implication. Consider the StarLogo software. It is a software which demonstrates the development of bottom-up systems but also obeys to a centralized control; namely the commands of the programmer.

But the programmer does not define what will StarLogo generate. Instead he/she gives the micromotives (actions) and lets the software evolve a macrobehavior of its own. The programmer does not control the process any more.

Do you remember Gearheads, the computer game with the windup toys on a chess board? It uses the same principle. You released the toys and then it was up to them how the game would develop (sorry I couldn’t find a proper link to the game; help would be appreciated).

To summarize

So what do such software tell us? That indirect control - apart from the obvious role already mentioned - is about providing tools to the community. Tools, which will give the group the necessary input in order to nourish a healthy discussion. Now its up to you to decide the form these tools can take.

It may be questions, polls or surveys. It may be the way you moderate comments (or comment on others - they are part of your network too). Let your imagination go wild. ‘Navigating’ your community correctly, giving the right input, will draw the attention of a diverse and independent group; and in the end of the process (although you can suggest that this process sometimes never ends) the subject of discussion will be examined under many perspectives and with great objectivity.