In my previous post about Google’s Knol and the role of the author I posed the question, in what extent do collaborative networks need author(itie)s to aggregate information correctly. And by correctly I mean, objectively - taking note of all sides of the subject.

Condorcet Jury Theorem

First I’ll try to explain why aggregation of knowledge can actually bring better results, than the opinion of a single expert. I’m based on the assumption of the Condorcet Jury Theorem, which supports that the probability of a correct answer by a majority of the group increases toward 100 percent as the size of the group increases. The theorem is based on the hypothesis that people are answering a question with two possible answers (one right and one wrong) and that their answers are not random – on the contrary they have more than a 50 percent probability of being correct.

Naturally, extensive criticism has been leveled at the binary logic of the Condorcet theorem, since a question has usually a wide spectrum of answers. But recent studies have shown, that even when the group is dealing with multiple options (instead of a true and false selection), there is still a high probability that it will actually conclude to the right answer, as long as the individuals tend to choose the right option.

The Catch

But there is a catch to the theorem: Correct aggregation of information does not simply rely on a large group of people. This group should fill a number of preconditions (which can in a way also be identified as an emergent behavior). During my research and study (and partly also during my own personal thinking) I collected these preconditions:

• diversity
• independence
• indirect control
• self-organization

The Concept

I’ll start a series of posts about each specific point. In that way I want to advocate for wikipedia’s system (or any collaborative network, that does not encourage ownership) within the scope of the discussion about google’s Knol. Namely, my assumption is that any participatory system that promotes ownership (authorship) and control, will eventually produce one-sided information.

If you have any additions or thoughts on the subject, improvize - contact me.

A big fuss today about the role and contribution of Google’s Knol in the social web and actually in knowledge itself (Knol as a short for knowledge). The read/write web and the official google blog are some sources which explain how it is supposed to work. [writing authoritative articles, highlighting authors, socializing (comments, ratings, reviews, references, etc)]

The controversial position of the author

One very interesting point I read from Nick Carr (a comment on a comment) is that “it will (apparently) be up to the authors to decide whether to accept them [the articles] or not”.

If the project actually succeeds (and by succeed, I mean big; moving wikipedia [probably its biggest competitor] aside) we might be seeing a turn in the purpose and structure of the web itself.

The role of the author will suddenly increase online. Copyright issues will come forward; authority issues too. Under that perspective I completely agree with Stan Schroeder, who puts the subject under that lense. He (and so do I) don’t really care who wrote which sentence.

The 80/20 Rule

Although there has been a big discussion lately about the long tail of the web, I’m afraid in wikipedia we are still facing the 80/20 rule (80% of the contributions are made from 20% of the users). But it is a rule that speaks against the community-driven structure of wikipedia; it puts wikipedia (and wikis in general) under severe criticism.

It seems that Google Knols wants to continue this tradition of the 80/20 rule. As Simon Owens noted “only the hard-core editors will contribute, while people like me, who don’t really have any interest in putting a lot of work into the entry, won’t be able to contribute at all”.

The question

Maybe in blogs and online documents, the author should be present, raising restrictions and copyrighting his/her work (I’m still against it).

• But in collaborative works, where we are dealing with the aggregation of information, what positive outcomes can authorship bring?
• Will the collective intelligence function better when the individuals constituting the community are all potential experts?

The social side

On the other side Knols will encourage commenting, editing, posing questions, rating and so forth. Communication, can surely promote aggregation and knowledge. It is in the hands of the google team and the user, how this project will actually work. Will it bring only authoritative articles on the community or will it promote a trustworthy aggregation of information?  (one that students can finally reference in their assignments!)

From the beginning of the twentieth century until today, a series of laws has emerged concerning the growth of computers and networks. They all negotiate the value of a network according to the technological leverage of the time. A short introduction to these laws, will prove why social media and collaborative communities can potentially grow into much larger networks than any other system.
Sarnoff’s law, which was interested with the growth of radio and television networks (and said that the system grows according to the amount of users constituting it) was followed by Moore’s law handling the evolution and expansion of computer microchips. Some years later, with the introduction of ARPANET and the first connected computers, Bob Metcalfe proposed a new law describing the value and the growth of networks.[as explained in the blog of VC Mike]

The law suggests that the value of a network grows with the square of the number of nodes (namely devices or people) it connects. It proposes that the number of potential connections between nodes grows faster than the actual number of nodes. If we have for example four nodes in a network, they will have a value of sixteen.

[When N the number of nodes, Metcalfe's law suggests that the network expands in a rate of N²; see Simeon Simeonov's post for more information] // [Value, according to David Reed, takes the form of potential connectivity for transactions. Namely, the number of different access points (users), which any particular user can connect to]

David Reed studied Metcalfe’s law and noticed, that although it describes telephone systems or small ethernet networks very well, it cannot be applied to social, group-forming networks such as the internet. The reason is, that Metcalfe’s law does not take into account the ability of the people in the network to form groups. Considering this, Reed discovered that “…networks that support the construction of communicating groups create value that scales exponentially with network size, i.e. much more rapidly than Metcalfe’s square law”. For example, according to Metcalfe’s law the value of ten users is one hundred (ten to the second power) and according to Reed’s Law 1,024 (two to the tenth power).

Illustration found at http://spectrum.ieee.org/print/4109

We see that both Metcalfe’s and Reed’s laws are associating the linkage of a network with its value. The connections in a system multiply faster the more users are part of it. Reed’s law assigns one more variable to this thesis. It declares that in a networked system, participation can exponentially boost its value. Though at first this increase may be small, it can eventually grow rapidly – and indeed faster than any other power law. Under that perspective, it is logical to assume that the possibility of group forming networks to expand into vast interconnected systems, systems that can function as hubs in the social web, is much higher than any other non-social network.

The transition that we are witnessing in traditional hubs (Amazon.com, google, etc.) verifies this assumption. These sites were providing services, which could be understood under Metcalfe’s law. They were connecting people and sites, but they were not giving them the option to form their own communities. But the rise of group forming networks and their expansion potential forced these sites to change. Amazon is now providing user review services and google several blogging and document sharing functions. These traditional hubs saw that social networking has the ability to create rapidly a vast system; a fact that made ‘fit’ (fitness as expressed by Albert-Làszlo Barabàsi) social websites strong competitors. The only way to stay on top was to add group forming services, which would allow the development of their network and keep users interested.

In Conclusion

There has been a great controversy about the role of Metcalfe’s law in the internet and if it actually can be applied to it. But if we disregard this debate and go a little bit further to Reed’s Law, we will see that a network, which encourages user interaction and group formation is able to grow much faster than other networks and - as I previously noticed - faster than any power law. This may be a mathematical explanation, why the blogosphere has grown so rapidly. It includes the parameter of socializing; blogs do not connect only computers but also people.

But its development makes me nonetheless wonder: In what frequency and degree does interaction between bloggers actually take place? Is the blogosphere also evolving in a ‘one-to-many’ medium or does the social aspect constantly win ground?

Joshua Porter, wrote a post at the end of September about improving online sharing. Very useful for anyone trying to develop a participatory community. The first step is to provide something worth sharing - a video, a picture or a URL, namely good content. He also mentions usability (making it easier to share) and creating a popularity (’most shared’) list.

If we see the blogosphere as a vast collaborative project, where ideas and thoughts are constantly exchanged, Joshua Porter’s list could be very useful for every potential blogger.

But we should not only see participation from the perspective of the administrator. A successful community does not only depend on the way information is shared. It also depends on the intentions of the participators.

The administrator should consider why people are willing to contribute - then it will become easier to improve online sharing.

The reasons people edit in wikipedia, can be a starting point. Information about such researches can be found at Brian Bex’s Blog and a poll he conducted and at oreilly’s post “what motivates wikipedians”

I don’t say adjusting your content to people’s needs. But understanding the social needs of the blogosphere is a step towards a more engaging and collaborative community.