User:RM395/Course/Week 13

Although the name of Pierre Levy's book is Collective Intelligence, his is just one of many ways to understand that term. Offer your own definition of "collective intelligence." What positive or negative connotations does is have for you?

A Subjective Term

My approach to defining "collective intelligence" is to break the words apart and define each individually. The first word "collective" seems to be fairly straight forward. A collection is a gathering of something, built up over time. This can be specific to an individual or could be a collaborative group effort. For example, I could collect bottle caps by myself or my family could collect them together but it is still a collective either way. So, in this case is it a gathering or building up over time of "intelligence." This second word is much more subjective, how does one define "intelligence?" It could be a synonym for information, but I think it is likely more than that. Also, what one person considers to be intelligent, another person might not. For example, in each of the edit wars we participated in class there was a huge difference of opinion on what qualified as "intelligence." I would define it as accurate information although I acknowledge that this probably doesn't do it justice and is highly subjective. So my definition of collective intelligence is a gathering or building up of accurate information over time.--Mdcoope3 (talk) 04:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

It's interesting to point out that "collective" insinuates that the amelioration of information is a gradual process. This is very important. In the process of combining knowledge to create the accepted collective intelligence, we definitely have to build. Most information doesn't simply materialize at the snap of a finger. There is definitely a process of compilation and curation that occurs to create our collective intelligence.--Eems.p (talk) 15:21, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Building Blocks

To me, collective intelligence has to do with the process of building up information over time. This could be coming from one person or multiple people. For example, multiple people could contribute to the "collective intelligence" about a scientific process or animal species. However, one person could learn multiple facts over time that add up to their own "collective intelligence" of a certain topic. If only one person is involved, I think it is typically a more personal matter, like his or her "collective intelligence" of personality or creativity. It could also be a single person's build up of knowledge on a more academic topic, but I don't think it is as likely. Either way, my view of collective intelligence is always based on building ideas or information on top of each other in order to get a larger body of knowledge. Kslinker5493 (talk) 19:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I also see that "collective intelligence" as somewhat of building blocks since the more people learn about a specific topic, the more they can add onto what has already been discovered. But I don't think that they are strictly building blocks in the sense that you keep adding one on top of the other. Sometimes new discoveries can also totally change how people previously thought about the topic. Charles Darwin, for example, believed that animals evolve over time when the mainstream idea was that each species was created by God and did not change. So while collective intelligence involves "building" I think there should also be "renovations" --MangoDango (talk) 01:45, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Imagining "collective intelligence" as building blocks does make sense, as long as you learn or add something new to the original idea/topic/concept with each step. Then again as stated above, what about new ideas that are inspired by other steps? Do you start a new staircase or just add more steps? I think it all has to do with categorization.--Tabbboooo (talk) 22:56, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

This is a good point. To me, it is all about categorization as well. You have to define what it is exactly that you're building upon as well as what exactly the "building blocks" are. It's a complicated subject because there are so many different ways to look at it. Kslinker5493 (talk) 23:33, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

The term "collective intelligence" oddly brings to mind some sort of hive mind state that aliens in sci-fi might be utilizing lol...but in all seriousness I do feel it would mean something along the lines of 'building blocks' of the collective human knowledge gained up until the current day. It brings to my memory the philosophers and essentially what were the early scientists back before science was technically termed with the ancient Greek minds such as Aristotle and Plato and company. It's crazy to think about how much these guys were able to figure out the world with what they had. They essentially had access to the most basic of technology, using mostly their eyes and brains, to figure out how the world worked. While they were terribly off, they were the first step. It's easy to be prideful and think of ourselves as smarter, but I think about how mankind was able to get from the first flight to the first man on the moon in around 60 years or so. Sir Isaac Newton himself is to have quoted: "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." We are only building up and adding to what those who came before started and contributed. One doesn't have to be a great modern thinker or whatnot in order to appreciate our advancements, though one does have to have humility to realize that we can only go so far by ourselves and within a single human lifetime. I guess to bring it all together...um...it's cool to have open databases like Wikipedia (or just the Internet in general, for better and for worse) since now anyone can just search up how the planets orbit around the Sun or how the ancient Greeks thought the heavenly bodies worked. --Seannator (talk) 09:21, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Collective Intelligence, Collective Unconscious

The term "collective intelligence" reminds me of a term I just learned in my Intro to Psych class. Collective unconscious is a term coined by Carl Jung meaning the methods with which all humans categorize and process experience. It seems collective intelligence is somewhat different in that it is not necessarily inherent, nor shared across all cultures -- at least in Levy's definition as I understood it. I'd offer that there is a more subliminal collective intelligence that is selected for on an evolutionary scale, more like collective unconscious.Luna002 (talk) 14:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

This is an interesting way to look at it. In my opinion, the process of collective intelligence and collective unconscious are definitely similar, if not exactly the same. However, I think that in more cases than not, collective intelligence is consciously performed by a group of people (or an individual person, depending on your definition). People consciously add to the collective body of knowledge more than they unconsciously do so. Kslinker5493 (talk) 23:36, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

As far as the group or multiple people oriented definition, my sense of what collective intelligence is fairly similar. A large number of people's knowledge on a particular topic. I agree that any additions to collective intelligence are often likely to be an intentional act to gain knowledge in some way. For me, collective intelligence has a mostly positive connotation, as I imagine it as an abstract way to think of humans gaining more knowledge of the universe. The only variable part of the definition is how large or small of a subset of all people does collective intelligence cover in a certain context.--Jeflicki (talk) 23:51, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I think this idea of "collective unconscious" enters into discussions about emergent behavior and the wisdom of crowds -- the notion that humans in large groups begin to manifest a kind of creative decision-making. In the Jaron Lanier article, he points to the usefulness of group efforts in open-source software development. Interestingly, though, he says: "These movements are at their most efficient while building hidden information plumbing layers, such as Web servers. They are hopeless when it comes to producing fine user interfaces or user experiences." For some tasks, the group just can't get it done -- you need the intervention of a creative individual, or perhaps a small team working consciously on a problem, rather than throwing it to a large group and expecting a solution to emerge. --Brodmont (talk) 14:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Combined Knowledge/Intelligence

To me, collective intelligence in its most basic sense involves more than one person combining what they know with others (and others combining what they know with more than one person) on specific issues that contribute to the overall understanding of those issues. I see the collective part as a positive part, considering it involves collaboration from multiple perspectives, working towards a common goal or a common understanding. It brings people together to discuss passions and interests, in order to contribute to the general knowledge base of that subject. A possibly negative part for me is the intelligence part, considering the line between knowledge and intelligence must be drawn somewhere, and that the line in question seems a little murky and unclear. What distinguishes the two? How would you determine if one is contributing to collective knowledge or collective intelligence? Do sources and peer review separate the two? Of course it is important to gather appropriate sources in the collaboration, but when do you turn someone down? Academics aren't the only ones with something valuable to add to the conversation, or to collective intelligence. I also see categorization as a huge part of contributing to collective intelligence. How the information is organized and considered can have a huge effect on the application and even the entire concept of collective intelligence.--Tabbboooo (talk) 23:37, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with this idea. I view collective intelligence as the combined knowledge. Meaning that a group of people combine all the knowledge they have in order to increase the knowledge they all have access to. It can refer to knowledge on a specific issue or on all things. Collective is usually a very positive thing because it means community and cooperation. In order to combine knowledge people would have to work together and be willing to share what they know with others which is a good thing. Intelligence can be positive or negative it all depends what it is being used for. If the knowledge that is combined is being used to produce something that will advance the group in a productive direction it is usually a good thing. If the knowledge is used to create something that threatens the existence of the group then it is a negative thing. --Youngpenn (talk) 03:30, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree as well. Collective intelligence seems to be the combination of many different kinds of information from many different people. I always think about how some people are so incredibly smart but they seem to lack common sense, and that really goes to showing the difference between knowledge and intelligence. For example, for such a respected research university as NC State, I constantly see people (not just students) playing chicken with cars on Hillsborough St, when there is this awesome little walking man that lets you know when you can cross. That's more of a personal annoyance, but regardless it seems that the more people that have more knowledge, we have a wider base to reach from, and I suppose intelligence comes by way of that large base of knowledge in some way. I do think it's very important to make a distinction between collective intelligence and collective knowledge, because there are things like street smarts or knowing what time the mail comes or knowing how to drive a stick shift, like Taylor was saying, that ARE knowledge but not academic. These are also important daily things. I believe we are losing a lot of these things to technology. --Tinaface86 (talk) 04:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if you have considered this before but what is the different between collaboration and collective intelligence? Based on your definition they seem to be basically interchangeable. This could be your intention; they are one and the same. Or perhaps collective intelligence does mean something different, perhaps even if it is just people collaborating to create some new knowledge base. Which would basically be a more specific kind of collaboration. Just some things to think about.--MartellRedViper (talk) 15:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Based on more than one person's knowledge

To me, the term "collective intelligence" refers to all of the available knowledge that has been accumulated on a particular subject. It differs form general knowledge in the sense that it is not one person's gathered information on a subject, but rather all those who have contributed information to a subject. Thus, it is the collection of all information that has been discovered on a subject. I would say that this can have positive connotations in that it can offer multiple points of view on a subject, which may allow the reader to obtain a more unbiased outlook. Although, it can also have a negative effect in that everyone's intelligence may be regarded equally, making it difficult to distinguish between information that was written by a credible author and information that is perhaps not so credible.--Ryenocerous (talk) 01:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I really think the word "intelligence" is what's throwing everybody off because you can't really gauge someone's intelligence by their knowledge base and you can't really add intelligences together. It's confusing because what you're really saying is it is just everybody's added knowledge, but not necessarily referring to how smart a person is. The entire knowledge base serves as one "collective intelligence". --Tinaface86 (talk) 04:15, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I am going to go with what I believe is the most obvious answer and say that collective intelligence is refers to the amount of knowledge in total about something. Maybe even saying knowledge is not enough. I would think collective knowledge would consider ideas such as opinions from multiple points of view as well. Having every input possible about something would constitute collective intelligence. This relates to the manypedia assignment. I think for an over all collective intelligence on something things like difference in language and culture for an article must be considered. An article about Kim Jong Un would be written radically different depending on which country you are from and which language you speak. These ideas have to be considered to have a collective intelligence even though the intelligence may not be uniform.--SJRick (talk) 07:40, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Specificity

On one hand I can see the idea of "collective intelligence" meaning like all perspectives on a topic being represented. I think that's probably reflective of Levy's definition. Before I read about collective intelligence, the first thing that struck in my mind is that the definition could possibly be just the opposite. Another way to view an idea or topic that is represented by a "collective" is one that is achieved by group that agrees unanimously. So perhaps "collective intelligence", rather than a highlighting of all points of view, could also mean intelligence of a collective, or the strongest interpretation of a topic is what is most strongly represented. --Eng395jy (talk) 01:38, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the latter part of your post here, the "unanimous" agreement. So for defining collective intelligence, I'd say it's a pooling of knowledge that is most unanimous amongst members of a group. I tend to have a negative view of this sort of thinking as I see it on the Internet, as it can be silencing to other points of views from other people outside of the group. --Katerwaul (talk) 02:40, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Like Katerwaul said, the Internet — despite acting as an experimentation ground for anyone in the world who'd like to contribute their own opinions to a debate — has a funny way of silencing dissent, not in a purposeful way but as an accidental byproduct of participants swarming to forums en masse. Many search engines favor relevancy, so they'll automatically direct searchers to Web pages in which the consensus is portrayed. I don't think there's a way of getting around this effect — or if getting around it is even a good thing — but at least there are search engines like DuckDuckGo entering the market as alternatives. --Information-01152001 (talk) 14:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't looked at DuckDuckGo before; thanks for mentioning it. Playing around with it, its results are quite interesting. Relating this back to the discussion of collective intelligence, if we consider how web pages are often written "for" search engines (e.g. using key phrases over and over again for higher search rankings), I wonder how much DDG is an alternative at this point since it is still aggregating this material written with this "collective intelligence" of search engine. --Katerwaul (talk) 02:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I also agree with the idea of "collective" being something achieved by a group unanimous agreement. In order for the information to be acceptable all of the group must agree on it. If this does not occur then it wont be collective it will actually divide the group. So the idea that the group would have to have unanimous agreement is a valid one.--Youngpenn (talk) 15:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Collective Knowledge

I think of collective intelligence as collective knowledge. It's information on a subject that has been collected by many people. We're not trying to judge whether someone is intelligent or not, but simply saying that information has been collected. I feel that this is positive because with many pieces of knowledge comes many points of view and it's important to look at something from all angles. Rebaduck (talk) 05:26, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that whenever I think of collective intelligence I am thinking of collective knowledge. To me intelligence, as used in the definition, does not refer specifically to the degree of intellect but is rather a term to describe knowledge. I also agree that this is positive in allowing the reader to gain different points of view on a particular subject.--Ryenocerous (talk) 00:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I think of collective knowledge as interchangeable with collective intelligence which is more of a theory that describes a particular type of group of people that emerge together in order to collaborate and/or compete amongst each other within that specific group. I think of the term mass peer review whenever I think about collective knowledge. It isn't our role to determine intelligence but rather to evaluate and appreciate the collaboration of knowledge or information. This allows one to look at the different assessments and point of views on a given subject as each person do contain different perspectives. This overall is a positive entity as it gives clear understanding of a given subject matter at hand. This is definitely useful when accessing information and easier to do as technology and time advances. This aspect is heavily influenced my knowledge ,collaboration, technology and writing.

--Isaiahgee (talk) 14:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Collaboration and peer review

Collective intelligence makes me think of two things: collaboration and peer review. We have the phrases "two heads are better than one" and the idiom "another pair of eyes." For the most part, the more people that agree on and collaborate on information, the more likely the information is valid. With everyone contributing knowledge, statistically we should be moving closer to the truth because a topic will be looked at from all sides and opinions. However, this does create room for a paradox (that Stephen Colbert brought up), if everyone agrees on something that is actually wrong, by our standards it becomes correct -- making a collective unintelligence. That aside, collective intelligence is the collaboration and review of information by multiple parties which is more likely to be closer to the truth than a single soul claiming intelligence. --Eems.p (talk) 05:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your general definition of "collective intelligence." People must collaboratively work together to create single claiming intelligence. Without this intelligence, or if the "intelligence" is incorrect, people will be led astray of factual information--Jastout (talk) 22:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Collective Intelligence: Two Extremes

Reflecting on the readings for today, I see two emerging definitions of a "collective intelligence" at two extremes:

The hive-mind
Knowledge management

You can see the hive-mind concept in speculative fiction -- exemplified maybe by the Formic race in Orson Scott Card's Ender Wiggin series, or by Jack Finney's 1955 novel The Body Snatchers, which has been made into movies a few times. Jaron Lanier, in his "Digital Maoism" essay, points out that there is a considerable popular and academic interest these days in something like the hive-mind concept -- for example, the idea of emergent behavior, "the wisdom of crowds," or even the idea of efficient markets.

At the other extreme is the more conservative, limited view expressed in the Pierre Lévy video. He portrays the collective intelligence in more of a knowledge-management framework, where people collaborate through a process of content-curation and knowledge sharing, enabled and mediated by information and communications technologies (ICT). --Brodmont (talk) 12:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

So, to answer the other part of the question, the more limited knowledge-management-and-sharing definition has positive connotations for me -- it's a very useful idea, especially for me as a knowledge worker. The hive-mind definition has negative connotations, especially in light of the paranoiac portrayal of the idea in literature and media. I also think, though, that the bigger objection to the idea is that, for humans, it might not really even be possible, at least in the extreme way it gets portrayed in fiction. --Brodmont (talk) 15:21, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I LOVE the reference to Orson Scott Card's hive-mind concept. There is definitely a relation there to Wikipedia, which is some sort of hive-mind. Example: you and all your posse read the same article on Wikipedia about some Important Dead Guy. You all share the same knowledge about Important Dead Guy, and that knowledge (as in, what was important enough to include in the introduction of the article) was chosen by a smaller segment of the population that democratically agreed that's what the average person should know about Important Dead Guy. It's possible those people omitted information that could be relevant, but you and your posse... you'll never know. You share the same network of basic facts. Clearly, both advantageous and disadvantageous. But I agree that Levy's point was that collective intelligence is more knowledge management -- and if any system in the world is attempting to manage knowledge, it's Wikipedia.Luna002 (talk) 14:17, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The Production of Unique Opinions

To me, collective intelligence has both positive and negative connotations. The first thing that I think of is the “majority-based truth” phenomenon seen in Wikipedia. I don’t like this. It paves the way for a society that places a higher importance on consensus than on actual truth. There are a lot of people who think their versions of history, for example, are spotlessly accurate. They may be (and are most likely) wrong. This doesn’t lead to truth, only the illusion of it. The positive connotation to “collective intelligence” is the ability for people of different cultures to access the same information and gain from it what they will. Many people’s opinions and decisions are based on ignorance — not necessarily through any fault of their own — due to a lack of information. Collective intelligence, then, can refer to the spontaneous ordering of different people, who come together to share knowledge in a way that is accessible to all people and that doesn’t force the product on anyone else. --Information-01152001 (talk) 14:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

If you look back at Brodmont's reference to hive-mind, your argument makes a lot of sense in that context. The dissemination of biased and even completely false information is a common malady. I recall learning Mormon history from the Mormon private schools/church growing up in Utah. That history, as later study reveals, is the most watered-down, acceptable history one could learn without wondering how anyone ever believed in that religion (or any religion, for that matter). So there's this type of minority collective intelligence -- say, the population of Utah -- that holds certain information as FACT -- then the broader American population that might hold a slightly more accurate view... to an extent. I guess we just keep hoping that by increasing the number of contributors, we can average out information/viewpoint and get "the global average."Luna002 (talk) 14:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Context is Key

Collective intelligence can take on different meanings depending on the context it is used in. The term can be applied to sociobiology, political science as well as in reference to mass peer review and crowd sourcing applications. In each of these different settings it has a slightly different meaning but still holds a general form in each one. My personal definition of collective intelligence is taking the knowledge of many individuals, or other entities capable of containing knowledge, and combining them together to form one knowledge source. Collective intelligence doesn't really have strong positive or negative connotations for me. If I had to choose I would say that it has a slight positive connotation because it is about combining things together to greater something greater, more powerful, and something greater usually has positive connotations attached to it.--MartellRedViper (talk) 12:37, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Combined Intelligence

I believe that collective intelligence can be negative or positive, given the situation. Depending on the culture or setting it can definitely have either a neither of positive connotation. Because it's essentially a knowledge shared with multiple people, the ideals can change depending on many different factors. If you're visiting another country, if you're american you may use the same ideals and manor isms used in your home country that would be frowned upon in another. It all depends on the situation.Jastout (talk) 15:26, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I can see why collective intelligence can be good or bad depending on the situation. Though the way you described it seems like there are multiple little "groups" of collective intelligence, each one having different participants. If one "group" is only comprised up of Americans then they aren't getting the full picture, and once that "group" encounters a different "group" that has different information in their collective intelligence, then that could lead to conflict. --MangoDango (talk) 17:52, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Video Games (MMORPGs)

Back in the day, I was a World of Warcraft player. Yeah, yeah, I know--call me a nerd. But what makes WoW more than just a typical video game is that it is a Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game (MMORPG). A player plays as one avatar in a world where the other avatars are played by real people. It basically is its own world. Players can team up to tackle dungeons or raids, and can interact and collaborate on the Auction House. Raids are huge dungeons that take the coordination of 10 or 25 men/women to defeat a series of difficult bosses. The interaction and communication that happens on separate voice server where instructions are given out for each specific player. Each player plays a specific character with a specific role. Before a boss fight people talk about what to do, what not to do, and how to do it. With the diversity of the characters the shared intelligence of their different play-styles helps the collective group to achieve their goals. This is my Video Game definition of collective intelligence. --Thepresidenthal (talk) 15:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I think this definition can go beyond video games and into anything that involves a team or a group. Soccer, hockey, basketball and all kinds of sports require a kind of unison in order to perform well. The collective knowledge of everyone working together is how teams win. The best players cannot win a game by themselves, it is a collaborative effort. Collective knowledge is essential because if players miss practice they could be out of the loop. Each team has their personal collective knowledge which is their team identity. --SJRick (talk) 07:48, 5 April 2013 (UTC)