What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How Private Online Shopping Clubs Work view!
howlifeworks.com - How to become a member and get discounts of up to 80% on must-have luxury goods
28 Comments
- wvannus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7The sheer appropriateness.
- aoe2bug, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7group think
- amormachine, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6i'd prefer to use the term 'hive mind' ... or perhaps the 'borg collective'
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Collective intelligence is a big deal because, let's face it, we're all used to seeing collective stupidity.
- dhughes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4 Will everyone have to wear a different colour unitard depending on their skill?
- nonanull, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_intelligence
- appetite, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I have found the answer to those questions.
But I've filed a provisional patent for them and I'm writing a white paper as we speak. - foolfromhell, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5We are the Borg. Lower your shields and surrender your ships. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile
From Star Trek: First Contact, the best ST movie to date.
Just a reminder, Picard>Kirk - DigiDave, on 10/12/2007, -1/+41. What is collective intelligence?
2. Why do we need collective intelligence?
2. How do we harness collective intelligence?
4. How do we make sure we don’t get collective stupidity? - SexyGeniusNinja, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Oh yah and in case someone has questions on my assessment of the Digg voting system
It may seem that the voting system for comments on Digg actually would contribute to problems like group think (ie the general attitude winning even if it isn't correct) however in the case of Digg I would argue that it helps ward off group think for several reasons:
1. Buried comments can attract more attention than other ones (sometimes I just have to know what the guy said even if he has -125 diggs)
2. In a group think situation there isn't any voting, all votes are just assumed to be in favor of the general group's usual opinion. On Digg however, the votes are all cast by individuals in a secret ballot type system allowing them to stray from the party line with ease, or at the very least just not vote if they don't know/care - SexyGeniusNinja, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3if you read the Wikipedia article on Collective intelligence you'll see that it is differentiated from group think. The problem with group think is that (from wikipedia of course):
"Group think may cause groups to make hasty, irrational decisions, where individual doubts are set aside, for fear of upsetting the group’s balance"
Collective Intelligence at least tries to avoid this. Whether or not these attempts are successful have to do with the implementation not the idea. For example would you rate all democracy based on a single term in a single specific country? It is clear that on Digg the same problems usually associated with group think don't occur for a few reasons.
1. Digg is at least semi anonymous so you don't have to worry about pissing people off if they don't agree with you (sometimes I like it)
2. Digg caters to arguments and consensus isn't a specific goal. We can all agree to disagree or at least just walk away when someone is being an ass
3. Digg doesn't necessarily work towards any one conclusion so the comments can be analyzed by each individual reader, who can come to an informed opinion based on what he/she feels are the most substantial comments, rather than catering to the group attitude.
4. People of intellect may be inspired even by comments they disagree with. This means that while group think usually occurs in a result equivalent to the lowest intelligence within the group, a comment system like digg (especially with it's voting features and critical nature) may in fact lead to an outcome that would normally only be brought about by someone of higher intelligence than any one person in the group, at least in theory. - jav1231, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2But can we really call many of the comments around here "collective intelligence?"
- chriskzoo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Ironic that "Collective Intelligence" is not intelligent by it's very nature - it's called GroupThink.
- scabbers, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Digg is better described as a ***** of morons.
- Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I always thought the intelligence of a group was inversely proportional to its size.
- SexyGeniusNinja, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You are probably thinking of the efficiency of a group which tends to decrease with group size due to inefficient communication (mythical man month anyone?)
Group behavior is much more complicated than a simple graph and depends on the individuals that make up the group. A group of quiet introverts with one extroverted large and in charge individual will probably work with the approximate intelligence of that one individual, as he/she will dominate discussion and decision making. According to my Organizational Behavior class (way back in third year (2003)) the best rule of thumb is that a group will work at the approximate IQ of the least intelligent member in a group think situation regardless of group size... though the decisions will most probably take longer to come to. - foolfromhell, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2A couple.
Red for command,
Yellow for Liutenant,
Green for medical or science,
purple for ensign - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_intelligence
- jackhole, on 10/12/2007, -4/+51) It is whatever we say it is.
2) Because we say so.
3) By thinking what everyone else is thinking.
4) I don't understand the ***** question. - micahglasser, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Then why are you reading Digg you R-tard.
- noouch, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Just remember: Collective collaboration != collective intelligence.
- WikiEasy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@SexyGeniusNinja
Not really true of Digg. It doesn't take much time browsing on here for one to notice that there is an ultra-ultra-liberal slant on all news, even more to the right than Slashdot!
Yes the news application itself doesn't favor one outcome over the other. However, the cluster of people on here tend to be the ultra liberal, who almost always bury comments or probably articles over any conservative or near-conservative slant. The majority of people on here aren't looking for intelligient discussion, only what they wish to hear. They will drown everything else out by burying them, and digging everything that's liberal up. A comment can be very insightful and it wouldn't matter one bit on here, if it's got a hint of conservative-ness.
I would say Digg is more of a mob scene, and not a place for collective intelligience, at least when it comes to politics. - jo42, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Collective Idiocy" describes things so far...
- cyn0sure, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The name of the center sounds like something from Atlas Shrugged.
* damn, sorry noouch, I accidentally dugg you down :(
Your comment is right on spot though. - macewan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Nov. 7th elections would be an example of collective intelligence.
- Vlatro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Straying slightly off topic - feel free to skip this comment.
@SexyGeniusNinja
I agree with your views of Digg, but find it fundamentally lacking in the Vote system. The trouble with the current voting system, is that the votes have no real value. You have an unlimited number to dispense as you see fit. While this does allow a greater number of people to participate in many discussions, I think it also diminishes the quality of those discussions. People will (and regrettably I often have) vote down any topic or comment that goes against their personal beliefs, opinions, or political orientation. There is no requirement to justify your vote.
I for one, would prefer a system that allowed a fixed number of votes per topic. Rather than voting against a comment, it should self bury after a specified time frame (perhaps an hour initially). The duration of the comment could be extended with each vote it receives.
I would also force replies to contain a "Agree" or "Disagree" response in regard to the comment it corresponds to. That would open the door for new filtering options. For instance, the light blue gradient behind this comment could be green instead, indicating in a quick visual way that my comment generally agrees with yours, or red if I disagree. I think something as simple as color coding could help eliminate the vast majority of "Bull-***** Votes", since people would be able to easily identify what comments they prefer to read. And with a limited number of votes, they'll keep alive only the comments they agree with, rather than (as they do now) trying to bury any comment they personally object to. It's an imperfect system, but I would certainly prefer it to the current system. - ploneglenn, on 06/05/2009, -0/+0This guy interviewed Stephen Buckley from MIT's center for collective intelligence. I recently ran across a video lecture by Thomas Malone who is from the same center. He wrote "The Future of Work" which is a book about collective intelligence for the enterprise. You can see this video and learn more about it at http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/future-of-work/decentr ...
- SexyGeniusNinja, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@WikiEasy
I've already addressed the points you bring up. Slant isn't important because burying comments doesn't delete them. If you like conservative comments and you feel they are usually buried then start reading buried comments.
Not only that but the results of collective intelligence at least in the case of Digg are individual, as there is no specific goal in mind. Therefore certain people will take different things from the same comments and I would argue in some cases this leads to a collective intelligence style result.
Also liberalism is the left not the right, and Digg is very far from ultra ultra liberal. In fact it is more accurately slightly left whereas those comments I've seen get buried have always been ultra ultra conservative.
The US in particular is very right wing. Republicans are ultra right wing and Democrats are just regular right wing. As well most right wing comments I see are based purely on emotion and opinion rarely to never being supported with any facts. Don't expect me not to bury comments about how abortion is "baby killing", how "liberals support terrorists", "that Ann Coulter isn't an idiot", or how the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex because none of those arguments hold water or have anything backing them up besides opinion/emotion. If you want to argue economics with some numbers than I'm sure liberals like myself will be willing to allow your conservative comments to go unharmed.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is