Defining social representation

\r\n
• First they make objects, persons or events we encounter conventional.This is a form of categorization, where people ascribe objects to certain models. The association of communism with the color red is an example. When a new element does not conform to a specific type, we then “...constrain it to assume given form, to enter a given category, in fact to become identical to the others, at the risk of its being neither understood nor decoded.”
\r\n

\r\n
• Additionally, representations are – as the author describes – prescriptive, meaning “they impose themselves upon us with an irresistible force.” Their power comes exactly from the fact, that they control the reality of today through that of yesterday, may it be through tradition, social institutions or media. These representations are not believes, which are constructed by each single individual but instead reside in the collective mind, they are shared by many, they are re-cited and re-presented.
\r\n

The role of the individual

\r\n
• Anchoring: It compares a foreign object to already known systems or categories and classifies it, namely sets it in a familiar context. Individuals do that either by generalizing or particularizing information. In the first case, they select randomly a feature and use it as a category. Thus this feature is also attributed to all the members of this category. In the second case of particularization, they consider a specific feature as a deviation to the norm and try to identify its distinctions in comparison to the already classified prototypes. For example, the image of a psychoanalyst is connected with features of wealth, status and relentlessness (generalization). But these features can also be modified to produce a paradigm of the american psychoanalyst (particularization).
\r\n

\r\n
• Objectification; This process combines – or even better, saturates - the unfamiliar idea with the reality. In this process the concept loses its abstract character and acquires “an almost physical, independent existence.” During objectification, the foreign idea adopts an iconic quality and is therefore easier understood and perceived. Political or other authorities often take advantage of this process to lead the masses, since the crowd thinks and is manipulated through images.
\r\n

Food for thought

Concluding social Representations

Social Representations in the blogosphere

\r\n
1. Social represantations is a study of social psychology, which helps us see how we unconsciously think. We adopt behaviors and ideas from our environment. That's one of the reasons why popular blogs become more popular: If everybody is reading it, then we suppose it is worth reading.
\r\n
2. Social represantations also tell us that the image of an object can have an impact on people, an impact so strong, that can influence their views about a subject, a person, a topic, a blog.
\r\n
3. Finally, social represantations also tell us that the thought process of the human brain is extremely complicated. A blogger might to do everything correctly to get heard in the blogosphere and still pass unnoticed. The context a blog is set can make a difference and this is something that the administrator cannot influence.
\r\n

[The same content, but written for print. What's easier to read? 11/12/2007]

\r\n
• Anchoring: It compares a foreign object to already known systems or categories and classifies it, namely sets it in a familiar context. Individuals do that either by generalizing or particularizing information. In the first case, they select randomly a feature and use it as a category. Thus this feature is also attributed to all the members of this category. In the second case of particularization, they consider a specific feature as a deviation to the norm and try to identify its distinctions in comparison to the already classified prototypes. For example, the image of a psychoanalyst is connected with features of wealth, status and relentlessness (generalization). But these features can also be modified to produce a paradigm of the american psychoanalyst (particularization).
\r\n

\r\n
• Objectification; This process combines – or even better, saturates - the unfamiliar idea with the reality. In this process the concept loses its abstract character and acquires “an almost physical, independent existence.” During objectification, the foreign idea adopts an iconic quality and is therefore easier understood and perceived. Political or other authorities often take advantage of this process to lead the masses, since the crowd thinks and is manipulated through images. Both processes (anchoring and objectifying) can be perceived as ways of handling memory. The first puts in and takes out objects, events or people and allocates them according to their type; the second draws images from the known categorization and unifies them with unknown concepts. In a way anchoring is inner-directed (the individual makes the classification alone) while objectifying is other-directed (the unification is made by a leading figure or the media).
\r\n

\r\n
• Concentrate on your about page (unlike me): it is completely different to say you are 4% neurotic (although your friends say its more) and to say that you are an executive producer of Hollywood or a manager in Google. Your about page gives you credibility.
\r\n
• Concentrate on the design of the blog (unlike me): It gives a first impression of the blog and shows your engagement to it.
\r\n

"2008-03-11T19:08:26"^^ . . . "2007-12-12T01:38:49"^^ . "Scaling laws and the social web; why participation counts" . "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.\r\nSarnoff'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]\r\n\r\nThe 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.\r\n \r\n\r\n[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]\r\n\r\nDavid 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).\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nIllustration found at http://spectrum.ieee.org/print/4109\r\n\r\nWe 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.\r\n\r\nThe 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.\r\n\r\nIn Conclusion\r\n\r\nThere 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.\r\n\r\nBut 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?" . "2007-12-13T23:21:25"^^ . . . "2007-12-12T12:22:08"^^ . "network theories in the blogosphere" . "If you imagine the social web as a gigantic town meeting, you could presume that the number of inbound (trackback) and outbound links (blogroll) can define its size. Taking a short look at network theory, from its very beginnings to contemporary studies, will show how this interconnected city works. Networks can be found literally everywhere: in airports and airplane traffic, in our brain, in micro-organisms and even in social interactions. Network theory has evolved in a study proving that we are living in a connected age where 'everything is connected to everything else'. Seeing the multitude of networks existing you can logically assume that there isn't just one type of network. Depending on its structure and the behavior of its nodes, a network develops specific characteristics. So let's introduce these networks, follow their expansion and consequently observe the characteristics of the blogosphere (and their meaning too!).\r\n\r\nThe type of network our town constitutes, can define the relationships and interactions in it. For example, if the members of the community are all randomly connected – each of them having on average one friend (link) – we result in a distribution where a large number of members (nodes) have almost the same number of friends (links).\r\n

Random networks

\r\nIt is a theory developed by Paul Erdòs and Alfred Rènyi in 1959, called random graph theory. It relies on clustering, that is to say that most people's friends are also to some extent friends of each other [Duncan J. Watts; Six Degrees]. It explains that the connection of small groups (clusters) will result into a single giant component. In a random network each node can contact any other node in very few steps and the more nodes the network has, the harder it is to find an isolated one.\r\nIf you want to translate random networks in attentiveness, the theory implies that drawing the attention of the public (namely the other nodes) is not such a complicated process. Everyone on the system receives more or less the same amount of links, namely interest. If you were to create a blog in a random network, sooner or later you would have roughly as many viewers as Google has. But we know (experience says) that the blogosphere - and the Internet in general - that we are not dealing with a random network. You do not randomly link to other blogs in your blogroll (or do you?), you choose them according to your interests and preferences. Therefore a new approach should be considered.\r\nWhat random network theory did not take into account, was that most real networks (organisms, social relations, the web, etc.) are not static objects. New links are constantly created, while old ones abandoned. Apart from that, clustering takes place by virtue of individuals having a number of affiliations, which are not all equally alike, meaning that our new acquaintances depend sometimes from our old ones. Indeed our actions directly deprive from our characteristics and these actions may lead us to completely new connections, which have no relation to our previous ones.\r\n

 

\r\n

\r\n

\r\n

 

\r\n[Both pictures taken from the book 'Linked' from Albert-Làszlo Barabàsi]\r\n

Scale Free Networks

\r\n In 1998 Albert-Làszlò Barabàsi with his co-workers were having their doubts, if the web was actually a random network (as thought until then). They started by creating a map of the internet (in reality a representational part of it), to research if its structure complied with the random model. They noticed that on the one hand 80% of the nodes researched had an average of four links while on the other hand 0.01% had more than 1000 links.\r\nThe architecture of the World Wide Web, Barabàsi's group concluded, is dominated by few highly connected hubs (like Amazon.com, or Google). These hubs are visible to everyone – there is a link in most sites pointing to them. On the other side there are sites, which are on the borders of the map, receiving almost no attention at all. Such a network (named scale-free network) follows a power law distribution. It is a continuously decreasing curve, which shows that many nodes have a few incoming links, while a few hubs have a lot.\r\n

Attributes of scale free networks

\r\n A primary property of scale-free networks and the power law distribution is that the rich get richer. This happens because we usually prefer to link to webpages that are not ordinary nodes, but hubs. If you want to point to an online shop, the chances are you would point to Amazon. This means, that the more links a site attracts the more popular it gets and the more easier it is to find it.\r\nBut, this also implies that the oldest node on a network will always have the most incoming links, since it had the longest time to collect them. Still, we have seen examples of sites and blogs, which although not popular when first online, receive great amount of attention, sometimes over night. This happens due to the webpage's ability to offer better content, updates, or services than its competitors. In such case of a competitive environment, each node has a certain fitness a degree, which defines how often the node will be linked. For example, between two nodes with the same number of links, the fitter one acquires links more quickly. While an old site might still draw attention of the users, a fit one will do so much faster. In other words, seniority is a great asset to draw interest, but fitness – which is independent of seniority - defines the speed at which nodes acquire links and therefore a senior node is not necessarily – or will eventually not be - the most popular.\r\n\r\n[a good introduction to the subject was written by Michael Schuster; it helped me a lot // also a good article with nice recommendations was written by Jason Kottke] \r\n

What do scale-free networks tell us

\r\n

\r\n
• First of all the obvious. If you want to get heard in the blogosphere, you need lots of links - inbound and outbound. That the blogosphere is actually a competitive environment (whether we accept it or not) and we are all competing for links.That content can have a great deal of impact. And by content I don't just mean text, but any type of services you could provide. May it be fancy CSS stylesheets, theoretical articles, beautiful pictures, groovy videos. If your fitness degree is high, you have nothing to worry about.
\r\n

" . "2008-02-08T18:19:59"^^ . . . "2008-02-11T13:23:05"^^ . "How serious can computer games be?" . "Micha informed me the other day of a conference taking place in Potsdam, Germany from the 8th to 10th of May on the philosophy of computer games. I find it to be a great opportunity for users and players to see games under a completely new perspective.\r\n\r\nJesper Juul and Ian Bogost, both theorists of video game studies will give keynote talks and more are yet to be announced. But the conference will not constitute solely on discussions. Scholars who take a professional interest in the phenomenon of computer games are invited to submit papers to the the international conference \"The Philosophy of Computer Games 2008\".\r\n\r\nI've read somewhere that games should NEVER take themselves too seriously. This conference and the theory of video games, puts this opinion under debate. Although the theory of games is relatively young, it certainly contributes in a discourse about:\r\n

action | space

\r\nIssues relating to the experiential, interactional and cognitive dimensions of computer game play.\r\n\r\nWhat is the nature of perceptual experience in game space? How should we understand the relationship between action, interaction and space in computer game environments? How should we think about players' aesthetic, emotive and(/or) rational responses to what goes on inside the game space?\r\n

ethics / politics

\r\nWhat are the ethical responsibilities of game-makers in exerting influence on individual gamers and society in general? What role, if any, can games serve as a critical cultural corrective in relation to traditional forms of media and communicative practices, for example in economy and politics?\r\n\r\nAlso: what is the nature of the ethical norms that apply within the gaming context, and what are the factors that allow or delimit philosophical justifications of their application there or elsewhere?\r\n

borders between play and reality

\r\nTerms such as \"fictionality\", \"virtuality\", \"simulation\" or \"representation\" are often used to indicate specific functions of objects in games.\r\n\r\nBut what is the nature of the phenomena these terms refer to in the interactive field of game play? And what is the structure of gaming-processes? What is the mediality of digital games?\r\n\r\nWe are especially interested in discussions that aim at how the notion of a self-contained \"magic circle\" - representing an imagined border between play and reality, or the internal and external limits of game-programs - is being challenged by forms of individual action and social inter action which tend to transcend such limits.\r\n

Open Invitation

\r\nThese are just some subjects that will be covered in the conference. If you have any work regarding the topic, you are invited to submit it until the 15th of February.\r\n\r\nI know, there is not much time left, but it is certainly worth it. This is an international conference with the collaboration of Universities from Germany, Oslo, Italy and Denmark. Your work will certainly be heard here.\r\n\r\nOf course you are also invited to visit the conference. The University of Potsdam has started an effort to provide residence to visitors having a hard time finding a place to stay. Students and conference organizers are welcoming visitors and doing their best locating accommodation and even opening their own homes.\r\n\r\nFor more information about the conference visit gamephilosophy.org.\r\n\r\nFor more information about the philosophy of computer games take a look at: The Digiplay Initiative: A collaborative effort on understanding digital games." . "2008-02-11T13:23:05"^^ . . . "2007-12-12T14:43:11"^^ . "'Nano-mario wants his amazing RIAA photos'; digg" . "Just a complementary entry on a previous post (how does mass psychology influence blogging?). I just remembered a digg post called \"Nano-mario wants his amazing RIAA photos!' which in just one hour draw the attention of 181 visitors and 622 (visitors) in eight (hours).\r\nIt was conducted by the xedant team, which analyzed the top stories in digg to find out the most oftenly used words in digg headlines. You guessed well, some of the top words were 'riaa', 'amazing', 'photos', 'nano'. More information from the xedant team itself here and here.\r\n\r\nI think this research verifies pretty well, that the studies of mass psychology can be applied in a non-massive medium, like the social web. I'm not saying that the blogosphere consists of a passive crowd [the xedant did not get any business from the visitors - although it got popular]. I just say that a good headline can make a big difference - and learning what constitutes a good headline can be found in studies of mass psychology.\r\n\r\n[The works of Elias Canetti: Crowds and Power, Gustave Le Bon: The Crowd; a study of the popular mind and Serge Moscovici: The age of the crowd; a historical treatise on mass psychology could be a good starting point]\r\n\r\nAnd as the third rule of digg.com noted in the report of the research) says: Your story must be unique. You can generate new content by analyzing an old one, like we did. An addition to the role of new content in the blogosphere.\r\n\r\nP.S. I don't like linking to amazon (or any online shop) but the LibraryThing, which i usually use to link literature, was down (anyway extremely slow). corrected that. But the Moscovici book was not in its databanks, so the amazon link remains. still sorry\r\n

 

" . "2007-12-13T23:20:59"^^ . . . "2007-12-13T09:58:49"^^ . "13 tips to search google like an expert" . "A very useful link to help you get the best out of your google searches.\r\n\r\ni-Hack\r\n

 

" . "2007-12-13T18:02:03"^^ . . . "2007-12-13T19:07:31"^^ . "Authorship in the blogosphere" . "Blogging is a practice, which mainly consists of linking and referencing other blogs or sites. At least, it is a practice that I widely use. After reading Lorelle's post on copyright and translation, I thought about the role of authorship in the blogosphere and in the web in general. The term of authorship often connotes the individualization of ideas, literature, philosophy and science. The role of the author is namely, very tightly connected with his/her work. By that I mean, that in order to fully comprehend the meanings hidden in the article or book or post we desire to know who, when, why and under which circumstances created the piece. If I were to write a post about free software, copyleft rights and the open source movement, you would like to know my background. Do I use Windows or Linux, what are my studies, am I a programmer or a user? Such information could define the post itself. But in some rare occasions the work follows its own course.\r\n\r\nThe role of the author\r\n\r\nMichel Foucault suggests, that the characteristic of the author, which accompanies the work, is in such cases her absence. But Foucault carries on talking about the role of an author, who goes beyond her work, who also succeeds – always through his/her work - in producing an opportunity for discussion and creation. Such authors produce an unlimited room for development and improvement.\r\n\r\nOne could think of their works as seeds, which other authors have the chance to take, change them at will and plant them as they wish to create new cognition. In such a case, the author is seen as a collector of information and knowledge. His/Her role is to gather and process data – and eventually add new content to the information pool. (as V. Flusser suggests)\r\n\r\nNew type of authorship\r\n\r\nThe World Wide Web and its hyperlinked structure has enabled this type of authorship in a literal way. From the first virtual communities to the blogging practices of today, users serve as information gatherers for others. During the 1980s, users met in Usenet newsgroups and today in weblogs and wikis to aggregate information.The first contemporary example of this new form of authorship that comes to my mind is wikis. Tens of millions of people visit Wikipedia and other wiki sites every day. They read, add and transform data in collectively created articles. On wikis, no person considers herself the author of an entry, since authorship is in a way senseless; wikis are collaboratively written works. It is actually considered 'unwiki'? to claim authorship- or even primary authorship - of an article. I tried to understand authorship under the blogging perspective. Yes of course authorship in weblogs is important, who writes what makes a big difference and is fundamental of the structure of the blogosphere. But it is still in the hands of the reader to collect all the pieces of information from comments, forums and linked blog articles about a specific topic in order to get the whole view of the subject. What I'm saying is that a subject is objectively covered, only when someone collects all the information about it; and in the end, readers are the ones, who gather the information. We are therefore returning to a thought expressed in the late 1960s by Roland Barthes, that \"the unity of a text is not in its origin, it is in its destination.\" The reader is the one who has the overview of all citations a writing consists of.\r\n\r\nConclusion\r\n\r\nWe are nowadays witnessing a new form of authorship, which signalizes participation and collective knowledge. The social web gives people the opportunity to share, collaborate, criticize and create a commons of ideas. The role of the individual is important to contribute in this commons but not to lead it. This bottom-up structure that the social web enables, draws the attention of the public, which wants to be a part of the productive process; and hypertext enables interactivity and in a way lifts the boundaries between reader and author.\r\n\r\nThe notion of the author - of the sole person getting credit for a work - is quite new. In the middle ages someone who copied a text, without adding anything new was considered a scriptor; someone who used works of others was a compilator; author was the one who used other works only to verify his own.\r\n\r\nI'm not advocating for copycats or translated versions of a text. On the contrary,\r\n

\r\n
• I believe that copycats, like the farmers of the example above, collect information and in a way or another add something (maybe something very little) to the original source.
\r\n

\r\n

\r\n
• I have complete trust in the users constituting the social web, to expose any dishonest intentions.
\r\n
• I find the web so intriguing exactly because there is no control of the data running in its streams. I prefer it, when people use my work without giving me any credit, than have a central control, choosing who posts what, when.
\r\n

\r\nFor this document I used (and draw inspiration) by the works of: Roland Barthes, Michel Foucault, Martha Woodmansee, Richard Stallman. I hear Jay David Bolter's book: Writing Space is thematizing this subject. I will return with a complementary post, after reading it. For more accurate information, questions or whatever feel free to contact me.\r\n

 

" . "2007-12-14T00:34:08"^^ . . . "2007-12-14T12:10:35"^^ . "Google's Knol and the role of the author" . "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)]\r\n\r\nThe controversial position of the author\r\n\r\nOne 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\".\r\n\r\nIf 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.\r\n\r\nThe 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.\r\n\r\nThe 80/20 Rule\r\n\r\nAlthough 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.\r\n\r\nIt 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\".\r\n\r\nThe question\r\n\r\nMaybe in blogs and online documents, the author should be present, raising restrictions and copyrighting his/her work (I'm still against it).\r\n

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

\r\nThe social side\r\n\r\nOn 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!)" . "2007-12-14T13:24:30"^^ . . . "2007-12-13T22:06:38"^^ . "Understanding the network: Google's pagerank" . "I am wondering if google and its search engine are actually important for the blogosphere. I believe, that bloggers have lots of options to locate other blogs (technorati, feedster, etc) and google is not the only solution.\r\n\r\nUnder that perspective, I completely agree with the post in the blog herald about the google game.\r\nGoogle is not the only game in town, and even if it were, blog entries should be targeted to the readers.\r\n\r\nNonetheless, getting acquainted with google's pageranking system can certainly help understanding how the network works. Apart from that, I suppose that other search engines, rank sites more or less on the same principles.\r\n\r\nSo here are a couple of links, which explain google's pagerank algorithm. One here and one here. Both posts are very detailed and surely explain a lot (although concentration is needed).\r\n\r\nAs the post in the blog herald suggests, I have my doubts if the algorithm is completely decoded, but still both posts are extremely thorough." . "2007-12-13T23:17:34"^^ . . . "2007-12-14T12:53:41"^^ . "Aggregating information" . "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.\r\n\r\nCondorcet Jury Theorem\r\n\r\nFirst 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.\r\n\r\nNaturally, 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.\r\n\r\nThe Catch\r\n\r\nBut 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:\r\n

\r\n
• diversity
\r\n
• independence
\r\n
• indirect control
\r\n
• self-organization
\r\n

\r\nThe Concept\r\n\r\nI'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.\r\n\r\nIf you have any additions or thoughts on the subject, improvize - contact me." . "2008-01-02T19:06:45"^^ . . . "2007-12-14T20:06:28"^^ . "Aggregating information; appetizer" . "A book in progess and one more advocate for collaborative projects and the wisdom of crowds:\r\nHow Experts Fail: The Patterns and Situations in Which Experts Are Less Intelligent Than Non-Experts.\r\n\r\nSimilar books are Cass R. Sunstein: Infotopia, Howard Rheingold: Smart Mobs;the next social revolution, James Surowiecki: The wisdom of crowds.\r\n\r\nBut 'How experts Fail' is in wiki format. Take a look and edit it!" . "2007-12-14T20:18:06"^^ . . . "2007-12-15T02:13:00"^^ . "Aggregating information; emergence" . "In the late '90s Marvin Minsky published a book called 'Mentopolis'. He documented the human brain as a distributed network, consisting of a multiple agents, where each one of those agents is responsiple for just one operation. In the picture below, for example, he proposed that in order for our brain to recognize an apple all these agents should be set in motion. The 'color' agent should collect his information and send it to the 'look to' agent, who in his turn would communicate with the 'place' agent and so forth. My interest in this network (called the find-machine by Minsky) is not its credibility but its properties and attributes.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nEmergent networks\r\n\r\nThe system Minsky composed was a typical example of an emergent network, namely a system with multiple agents dynamically interacting in multiple ways, following local rules and oblivious to any higher-level instructions. Minsky visualized a perfectly functioning system, with absolutely no central control. The nodes (meaning the agents) are interacting in order for their microbehavior (sorting color, size, etc.) to result in a macrobehavior (perceiving the object). Such organizations are present in nature (see the work of Deborah Gordon on the emergent behavior of ants), computer software and even in the structure of cities and are giving us a glimpse of networks, which correctly aggregate information.\r\n\r\nEmergent systems function so perfectly, because they work with neighbor interaction, feedback, pattern recognition and indirect control. They are designed to learn from the ground level, to take advantage of local knowledge for an upper goal. Through interaction, they are capable of recognizing patterns and indirectly controlling the whole system.\r\n\r\nEmergent social web\r\n\r\nI'm not implying that the social web undertakes a completely emergent behavior. We are dealing neither with oblivious users nor with pattern recognition systems (at least not yet). But still there are perfectly functioning communities, which adopt the traits of an emergent behavior (probably slashdot, wikipedia and the linux operating system being the most profound examples). There is not any administrator – at least not in the traditional sense – leading the community. The users are self organized, sometimes each one responsible for a specific activity and always working together to provide quality material. Under that perspective we are experiencing the formation of online emergent networks, which are developing a life of their own – a life without any central control.\r\n\r\nBut what makes such behavior so successful? As I argued on my previous post regarding aggregation of knowledge (and your additions are mostly welcome on this), their success lies on:\r\n

\r\n
• diversity
\r\n
• independence
\r\n
• indirect control
\r\n
• self-organization
\r\n

\r\nConclusion\r\n\r\nIf such systems (and among them is the World Wide Web itself) manage so successfully to collect knowledge without any central power, why should we accept the control of any authority, which would define who posts which article and who links where? Years of experience show us that such 'problems' of the web can regulate themselves.\r\n\r\nIn following posts I will concentrate explicitly on each of the above-named traits of emergent networks with the hope of justifying my thesis, that expertise is not the only path to knowledge.\r\n\r\nFor this post the book of Steven Johnson: Emergence and of Marvin Minsky: Mentopolis (where the photo also comes from; original was in german, I translated it) where of great assistance." . "2007-12-18T17:50:38"^^ . . . "2007-12-15T10:59:48"^^ . "The strength of weak ties and getting web design work" . "I just discovered an entry (me and approximately 1000 diggers) posted by Collis Ta'eed, which gives designers tips to get web design jobs (The secret to getting a lot of web design work). But what draw my interest was not the 6 points the article is proposing but the introductory note:\r\n\r\n\"Each week I get two or three requests for design work. They come sometimes from contacts, but more often than not they come from random people. Sometimes they even come from web-famous people or well-known companies. What is interesting about this though is that I no longer freelance, advertise for work or even have a portfolio.\"\r\n\r\n\r\nIt reminded me of the influential work of Mark Granovetter: The strength of weak ties. Granovetter says that most people find jobs not from their close friends, but from random acquaintances (weak ties).\r\n\r\nIt is based on a key principle of real networks (like friendships for example): clustering (most of your friends are to some extent friends to each other). This suggests that, looking for a job with the help of your close friends will not be of great assistance, because any openings they might know, you them too. But your acquaintances are moving in different circles than you and therefore have access to different information. He, nonetheless, does not disregard the role of strong ties (close friends); he suggests an equilibrium.\r\n\r\nCould Granovetter's study be applied in the blogosphere? When you first posted your blog, did you tell all your close friends? Or did you also send a short mail to distant acquaintances?" . "2007-12-15T11:03:34"^^ . . . "2007-12-17T11:38:54"^^ . "Google Knol vs. Wikipedia" . "In the last days I have seen several posts about the Google Knol project in relationship to wikipedia and its role in the aggregation of knowledge. I will list here all the links that I found concerning Knol, in order to get a spherical view of the subject. I must admit that most posts are severely criticizing Knol. I wonder if the reason is the blogosphere I have created around me - or if the positive views are actually so few (or so silent).\r\n

\r\n
• Google's official blog announces Knol
\r\n
• Marshall Kirkpatric takes a short, objective view of Knol. Along with a small comment of Ward Cunningham, inventor of the wiki.
\r\n
• Google Knol: Wikipedia with a face, or the new squido? My favourite (and most difficult) question about the Knol Project: Is highlighting the author the real answer? Also my posts Google's Knol and the role of the author along with Authorship in the blogosphere are a couple of comments on the subject.
\r\n
• Sizlopedia with the post \"Google Knol free wikipedia\" poses the question Knol= wikipedia + social networks. Why?
\r\n
• Googlepedia. The term I love the most.
\r\n
• Mashable with an interesting poll: Is google Knol a wikipedia killer? Also on mashable, a very thorough article \"Google Knol more of the same\". Again talking about authorship and heavily criticizing Knol.
\r\n
• Google Knol and the long trail. Bloggasm on 'Google to create its own version of wikipedia'.
\r\n
• Nick Carr and 'Google takes aim at wikipedia'. Maybe the article that started the avalanche, with a list of very interesting comments.
\r\n
• Wired about 'Google's Knol not being a threat to wikipedia'
\r\n
• Also two interesting views on the subject from wiredamp 'knol and wikipedia begin to dance' and 'Google to destroy wikipedia?'
\r\n
• Finally a fresh blog. Its title speaks for itself: savewikipeidia.wordpress.com\r\n
\r\n

\r\nThe entries of the above articles range from neutral to extremely critical to the Google Knol project. I agree with the opinion that Knol is not a threat wikipedia. They are targeting different groups. But, although I too was critical to Knol, I can see a positive side to the project.\r\n

\r\n
• Authorship comes along with trustworthiness. If anyone of you is a student, you'll understand the importance of this note.
\r\n
• In some subjects neutrality is not the best solution. Debates and differences of opinion can occassionally bring better results.
\r\n
• Knol has certainly more features. Comments, questions, rating, reviewing, referencing. These are important stuff. If used correctly can bring very good results. Someone commented on one of the above posts (sorry I don't remember which post, or who commented), that knol takes the attributes of blog in wiki format. I like this feature.
\r\n

\r\nThe question that stands out, is how will people contribute to this community? And how will google handle this community?\r\n\r\nIf you have any additional posts about Knol and wikipedia, tell the group; leave a comment." . "2007-12-17T12:22:28"^^ . . . "2007-12-17T12:20:56"^^ . "Interview: Teut Weidemann on online communities " . "Teut Weidemann was the head of community development for panzer elite and for the entire jowood community. He started in the games business in 1987, but worked on computers since 1981. Several months ago, while I was working on GameFace magazine, I had the opportunity to interview him, about community building and management. Although the topic was mostly video game communities, he suggested that his 'strategies' ...\"can be used for all communities, from games to fans of tv series to bookkeepers\".\r\n\r\nI found the article yesterday, and I wonder if his suggestions can also be applied to blogging communities? Judge for yourself:\r\n\r\nWhat do you actually mean with community management? What is it basically about?\r\n\r\nCommunity management is the task to manage and support your community members. If you don't support or manage them your community will fall apart. So you have to have someone who cares about them and knows how a community works. That's one part of community management. The other part is how to plan the information flow to your community. How do you plan it, manage it, and control it all for the benefit of your community. After all your community is your customer right in from of your doors. Don't shy him away.\r\n\r\nDo companies that create communites mainly for marketing reasons, handle them differently as developers that create them for fun?\r\n\r\nYes, the firtst ones will fail, the second will succeed (strangely to any observer). Building up communities just for marketing won't work. The community only grows if they gain something, something they can't get elsewhere. That's why developers have a build in talent to manage communities right: they love to talk about their game so they share a lot of information with the community.\r\n\r\nCommunities aren't stupid, in fact with most communities there are people more talented and smarter than in the complany who manages that community. So don't try to feed them false info, or worse don't try to market talk to them. They hate it. Open, uncensored, truthful, straightforward and in time. That's what your information needs to be.\r\n\r\nWhat is the role of the community manager? Is he supposed to interfere in the whole process of the community?\r\n\r\nThe community manager is the interface between your community and the people behind the product. He needs to know all about the product and has to have access to all people involved in it. He doesn't control the community, he supports it. Total control will destroy a community pretty fast. Of course he needs to take control if things get out of hand, but that's rare and only shows to things if it happens: Your community is getting large (and part of it are troublemakers) or you have done something wrong. A community manager only interferes if there are problems the community can't solve for themselves. Some problems of the community are made by the owners of the product. Either they released wrong information or no information at all. Leaving the community alone and not giving them something to feed on is a mistake. Not listening to them is a mistake, too. Not intergrating them into your product feedback is a waste of potential.\r\n\r\nIs there a principle for the ideal time to post news, where they will be mostly read? If so, how does this principle work and what is it based on?\r\n\r\nYes, most news are read on Mondays as people browse the news during office hours. On weekends it's bad as most people rather play than browse. But Monday is very crowded as many news from the weekend are being posted. So we picked Tuesdays and Thursdays to post. Sometimes however we used Fridays as the news will stick on the sites for the whole weekend. We got access to the number of news readers and clearly saw when we had most feedback (i.e. visitors from other sites due to our news) which showed exactly when it was optimal to post. That might vary depending on the product. For a TV Show for example, it would be important to post around the air time of the show, for games its different: Gamers bahavior can be measured and you should follow it to maximize your efforts.\r\n\r\nWhat reasons would make a good community fall apart, even though the manager has followed the strategy rules?\r\n\r\nLack of new information, no one to talk to, bad product being released not fulfilling the promises (break of the rule being truthful, remember?), change of site with registering, changing too much on the site too often, not caring. Many things, some little and some big ones you can do wrong.\r\n\r\nThis is just a part of the whole interview. We also talked about the relation of community management and product value, marketing inside the community and the role and taks of the community manager. If you're interested in reading the whole thing let me know." . "2007-12-17T12:27:42"^^ . . . "2007-12-17T15:45:01"^^ . "My tiny jesus" . "My tiny jesus\r\n\r\nSo pointless...so cool." . "2007-12-17T15:45:01"^^ . . . "2007-12-17T17:37:26"^^ . "Aggregating information; diversity (1/4)" . "

I started on Friday talking about aggregation of information and its potential in producing objective and spherical knowldedge. The day after (on Saturday) I noted the emergent behavior such networks can develop.

\n\n

Just a reminder; these series of posts are supposed to highlight the difference between having a set of experts in your network/community/system/blogroll/name-it-as-you-wish and having an open public, without posing any restrictions. In other words the series are about the fundamental difference between Google's Knol and wikipedia.

\n\n

Today I will continue this series of posts, explaining the four preconditions necessary for a correct aggregation.

\n\nDiversity; an example\n\n

Let us consider a blog with liberal political content, which mostly references other liberal blogs. It is logical to presume that the knowledge aggregated from these blogs will also be liberal – an one sided view of the political system. The network these blogs create, will in its turn mostly gather users who also agree with this perspective. The impact to the collective information is obvious; it will treat all political matters liberally. But apart from that, the network will consist of a small liberal group of people excluding other opinions and accordingly viewers. An objective network (meaning one that sees subjects under different perspectives) cultivates constructive discussions and therefore draws the interest of a wider public. It also sets the tone in which discussions take place and a common goal that people can join in attempting to reach.

\n\nDiversity of perpectives\n\n

Emergent systems manage to function so well, because a collective macrobehavior is achieved when the system consists of a multitude of agents, each one attributed with a simple operation. In other words emergence is accomplished (among other reasons) due to the multitude of different agents. Emergence relies on the diversity of its agents.

\n\n

The Condorcet Jury theorem, which I also mentioned in an earlier post, relies on the fact that in a diverse group the chances that at least someone will propose a new, radical idea is increased. Also influence between individuals or clustering of opinions are less likely to appear in a diverse group. This means that the information collected will approach an objective view of the subject.

\n\nDiversity of expertise\n\n

A diverse group does not only imply collecting a set of different perspectives about a topic. It also means creating a group of individuals with different grade of expertise and knowledge. Homogeneous groups have the tendency to refrain from investigating alternatives, they find it harder to continue learning and thus bring less new information in the community. Less experienced members will provide fresh aspects and propose questions, which under different circumstances would not be expressed.

\n\nConclusion\n\n

We must keep in mind that the focus of a community is not to consist of wise individuals. Instead it concentrates on making wise decisions. I do not suggest here that a diverse group of uninformed individuals could collectively succeed more than one of experts. But an assemblage of people with various degrees of insight, may give better results than a few specialists.

\n\n

Naturally, when i use words like 'creating a community' or 'producing collective knowledge', I do not mean that you can just choose who contributes to your network. (you might be able to guide it a bit, but in the end its out of your hands). On the contrary the traits, challenges and participators of your network will act as a magnet to a diverse group.

\n

The question that emerges is: 'Do you want to be open to everybody and hope for the best, or do you want to invite only experts and observe a clustering of knowledge and perspectives?

\n" . "2007-12-17T17:37:26"^^ . . . "2007-12-18T13:57:01"^^ . "Aggregating information; Independence (2/4)" . "

\"In the 1950s the social psychologist Solomon Asch conducted a famous experiment that highlighted the fragility of the person in a mass society when he is confronted with the contrary opinion of a majority, and the tendency to conform even if this means to go against the person's basic perceptions.\" (Solomon Asch; Opinions and social pressure)

\n\nFrom diversity to independence\n\n

Either by willingness to respect the informational signals shared by group members of a particular belief or by fear of dislike, people usually do not speak out their opinion. The informational and social influence can have a great impact in the decision of an individual.

\n\n

An attribute that directly derives from diversity, is independence. Especially, when we are dealing with a group of diverse degrees of expertise, independence is necessary for the less experienced to not hesitate in expressing his/her views or questions.

\n\n

I don't see independence as a a form of isolation, but instead as a relative freedom from the influence of others. Having independent individuals in a group, prohibits the correlation of mistakes people make and verifies that new information will come to light. The misjudgment of a person, regardless of her knowledge degree, will not change the collective thought. Apart from that, autonomous individuals will bring diverse perspectives to the group.

\n

Naturally I'm not implying, that with independence comes rationality and impartiality, but surely, under the correct circumstances, irrationality will not influence the rest of the group.

\n\nIndependence in emergent systems and social networks\n\n

An emergent system can easily develop independence, since the constituting agents are ignorant of the overall state of the network. They are carrying out a simple, repetitive task guided by a pattern recognition system. But accomplishing independence in a social network can be a very difficult task.

\n\n

In a previous post about social representations, I noted how strongly the private and public sphere can change people's perspective. It seems as if influence were inescapable.

\n\n

People are primarily social beings; they are constantly trying to expand their knowledge and perception by interacting with each other. The social web is – as the term implies – based on this function. It is founded on the principle of interaction between individuals and not between computers. Still though, collective decisions are most likely to be good ones as long as they are made by people with diverse opinions reaching independent conclusions, relying mainly on private information.

\n\n

The question that rationally follows, is how can a community overcome this paradox. Creating a network, which consists of diverse, independent individuals seems not adequate enough to produce correctly aggregated information.

" . "2007-12-18T13:57:01"^^ . . . "2007-12-18T16:32:40"^^ . "Aggregating information; self organization (3/4)" . "

I noted earlier the paradox between a group of independent individuals and the social web: the social aspect of human interaction, sets influence between the group members as a standard. The structure of the network itself can assist in avoiding this paradox.

\n\nDecentralization and the collective intelligence\n

The notion of collective intelligence takes decentralization as a prerequisite. When the community consists of a diverse and independent set of people, who all work together on the same problem, then no central control is required. The community can evolve on its own, powered only by the initiatives of its contributors.

\n\n

In parallel, self organization fosters specialization – specialization of interests, of attention, of labor. Each member of the group can concentrate on a specific subject, according to its interests and knowledge. Apart from the fact, that specialization increases efficiency and productivity it also encourages diversity of opinions. Dividing a subject in subcategories and appointing users to work on them, will cultivate concentration and increment of knowledge.

\n\nThe strength of self organization\n\n

The strength of self organization is that it allows people to be close to the actual problem and coordinate their activities, while each one concentrates on a special topic. But remember: the purpose of the community is to aggregate information; to take the specialized, local knowledge and make them collectively and globally useful.

\n\nThe emergence of self organization\n\n

Just like Google's search engine collects local information of millions of websites to make the search quicker or like the linux operating system collects user submitted information and bugs for improvement, so a community needs an administrator to take over this responsibility.

\n\n\n

In both Google's and Linux's cases – and actually in every emergent system – we are talking about a network, which has the ability to adapt to new data. In typical emergent systems, this happens with a higher-level intelligence, which is aggregating the local knowledge to adjust the global system to fresh information. It transforms the microbehavior of the agents to a macrobehavior. Perhaps, this view finds an application when we are dealing with software (Google's search robots), but in social structures the term 'higher intelligence' sounds exaggerated.

\n\n

In the social web, groups do not need someone who will make the final decision. Instead they require an administrator who will moderate the whole process, who will indirectly control the community.

\n

\nValues and self-organization is an interesting entry about the subject. Also Alex Iskold wrote an article about the digg effect and its self-organized structure." . "2007-12-18T16:32:40"^^ . . . "2007-12-18T17:01:59"^^ . "25 best rock posters of all time; design inspirations " . "Some really cool posters here. I just had to share.\r\n\r\n25 best rock posters of all time" . "2007-12-18T17:01:59"^^ . . . "2007-12-18T18:59:43"^^ . "The Davos question and the wisdom of crowds" . "Google's blog posted an article on the 'Davos question', which is: \"What one thing do you think that countries, companies or individuals must do to make the world a better place in 2008?\"\r\n\r\nEvery year, many of the world's top leaders from politics, business and the global community -- including some of our own -- attend the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, to discuss how to make the world a better place. This year, we wanted to give people around the world the chance to join them, and help them, by submitting their own answers to \"the Davos Question\" according to google's post.\r\n\r\nThe principle is that everyone of us should post a short youtube clip to contribute in the improvement of the world (after we think about it during the christmas period). [see also the TechNewsSource post on the subject]\r\nThe wisdom of crowds\r\n\r\nThe Davos question is surely an initiative that shows its trust to the people. It takes advantage of the social web and gives the opportunity to everyone to contribute to the commons. It applies the concept of collective intelligence in its full extent, since it invites a group of diverse, independent individuals to collectively make a decision/suggestion. After all democracy and free markets are based on this ideal.\r\n\r\nSome suggestions are already on the run:\r\n

\r\n
• Scobleizer has a suggestion
\r\n
• Compasion in politics has a post too.
\r\n

\r\nCriticism\r\n\r\nAlthough the Davos initiative honestly makes me very glad, I can't stop being also a bit skeptical. The reasons are numerous:\r\n

\r\n
• is there really one answer to such a question? Where should we begin? Environment, corruption, wealth, war. The questions sounds a little bit naive.
\r\n
• will really world's top leaders listen to the online community?
\r\n
• My skeptical, conspiracy-prone alter ego, suggests that it is just a way to make the crowd feel like they actually contribute to this discourse.
\r\n

\r\nI really don't know what to expect. My optimistic side surely finds the Davos question on youtube really great. My pessimistic side is a bit more critical (a view also seen by a mashable post: Davos Question: PR move or security measure?). But anyway I will observe the development of the online (and offline) discussion - and also participate in it - and keep you posted.\r\n\r\nBut honestly now, how do you find this proposal of an open, online, Davos question?" . "2007-12-21T11:39:12"^^ . . . "2007-12-19T16:11:14"^^ . "Are we a wise crowd?" . "While thinking about the widely discussed 'Davos Question', I asked myself if we are really a wise crowd. What makes a crowd (which under different circumstances behaves completely irrationally) make the right decisions? I leave aside for a moment my posts on aggregating information. Instead i want to point to some other interesting posts on collective intelligence and the wisdom of crowds:\r\n

\r\n
• US Consumers: a wise crowd . An interesting example.
\r\n
• If there's wisdom in crowds - why don't we let the masses rule? Learning from nature; with an insightful link
\r\n
• Wisdom of the crowd and the bullwhip effect
\r\n
• Mining the wisdom of crowds . An explanation of a powerful strategy
\r\n

\r\nAnd the other side of the story:\r\n

\r\n
• Maybe the crowd is not wise
\r\n
• When crowds aren't wise; the low fat diet cascade. When informational cascades go wrong.
\r\n

\r\nThe question still remains? Are we a wise crowd? And if so, will our views be heard?" . "2007-12-19T16:11:14"^^ . . . "2007-12-20T13:05:49"^^ . "Aggregating information; indirect control (4/4)" . "

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.

\n\nLearning from software\n\n

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.

\n\n

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.

\n\n

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).

\n\nTo summarize\n\n

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.

\n\n

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.

\n\n" . "2007-12-20T13:05:49"^^ . . . "2007-12-20T13:51:34"^^ . "Reciprocal links; linking the right way" . "Recently in a post about 'network theories in the blogosphere', I explained how the web listens to the linking methods of the network.\r\n\r\nYesterday Terry Heath wrote an interesting article about reciprocal links in a blog. Really enlightening stuff.\r\n\r\nBut there's one point I disagree with:\r\n\r\nHe suggests finding potential link partners and sending them a small introductory text, where you say that you have an active link of their site and that you would appreciate a link back.\r\n\r\nIt's not that I find the method bad or 'marketing-like', its just that i prefer people linking to me, because they found my post interesting; because they thought I had something to say that passes with their post (regardless if its a disagreement or a praise).\r\n\r\nI believe that's the main reason blogs have developed trackback, right?\r\n\r\nNow you might say, that I'm writing this post to get a reciprocal link from Terry Heath. It could be so, but its up to him if he links back to me or not. I'm not offering an exchange. I'm opening a discussion." . "2007-12-20T13:51:34"^^ . . . "2007-12-20T14:56:16"^^ . "Rating system" . "I'm trying to implement a rating system (a wordpress plugin developed by Lester 'GaMerZ' Chan), so that you can rate my posts and help me improve the content. It might take me a couple of hours to make it work properly, but bare with me.\r\n\r\nI like criticism especially when its constructive, so additional feedback/comments would be appreciated." . "2007-12-20T14:56:16"^^ . . . "2007-12-20T19:24:50"^^ . "Is Google Knol losing ground?" . "I just discovered a very interesting post through a blogoscope entry about Google Knol. It is located in Anil Dash's blog and is called 'Google and the theory of mind'.\r\n\r\nHe gives some examples, why google is not aware of what others are aware. One of these examples is the google Knol announcement almost a week ago.\r\n\r\nWhat really drew my attenion is, that allthough the Knol announcement clarifies that the content will also be available to other search engines, Anil Dash notes that Knol will be hosted and indexed by google.\r\n\r\n\"This presents inherent conflicts in the ranking of content, as well as disincentives for content creators to control the environment in which their content is published. This necessarily disadvantages competing search engines, but more importantly eliminates the ability for content creators to innovate in the area of content presentation or enhancement.\" \r\n\r\nA very well-argumented post, which surely puts the subject under a new perspective. Take a look at it.\r\n\r\nUpdate [22.12.07]: Masternewnmedia posted today a great article on the subject. Google Knol and wikipedia: Risks, opportunities, challenges" . "2007-12-22T14:12:52"^^ . . . "2007-12-21T11:31:37"^^ . "The Met Museum trusts the wisdom of crowds" . "The Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York has started a project called