Internet Economics and Politics II: Collaborative Business Models and Collective Decision-making
From Technologies and Politics of Control
Mass collaboration and the aggregation of information enable potentially profound changes in business and politics. In this class, we will compare and contrast the transformations in economic life and collective decision-making processes brought on the information revolution. The discussions will also explore the role of open information systems on business and the scope for greater transparency and participation in government, politics and public life.
Readings
- James Surowiecki, Wisdom of Crowds (excerpt)
- Wikinomics wiki Peruse the wiki to get a sense of the arguments.
- Ethan Zuckerman's blog review of Infotopia Great summary of the issues in the book.
- Jaron Lanier, Digital Maoism A critique of hive mentality.
Additional Thoughts
- Federalist Papers published under the pseudonym Publius.
Class Discussion
Sharing ideas and improving collaboration leads to an outcome where 2 + 2 = 5. Google Docs, Instant Messengers, open source technologies, Wikis and blobs are part of my day to day life and sometimes we regard them as granted, not realizing how such a huge difference they make in our productivity and culture. Yesterday, I talked to a prospect in the U.S via Skype, talked to a co-worker who is in Australia via MSN Messenger and downloaded a free open source software from an Indian website. I am as productive as never before!
-Andre Monteiro 22:11, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
I agree with you (not to reinforce Sunstein’s ideas here : )) – It reminds me of my vastly different experiences researching Supreme Court cases today compared with doing the same research a decade ago in college. Online collectivism, while hardly perfect, is vastly preferable. Wikipedia might well be an “online fetish site for foolish collectivism,” as Jaron Lanier called it, but when I’m confused about a case, Wikipedia still helps and it is much more effficient. I always end up with a starting point or small clarification at the very least. I’d rather take two minutes to do this than be simply limited to spending hours trolling the library shelves and doing the tedious Lexis-Nexis searches that were the only options in the old “industrial information economy.” Of course, I still crawl the library and use Lexis, but the point is that online collectivism gives people more options and makes more information available quickly. --Mfregosi 12:23, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
Class Introduction - The concept of collaboration is not new but business models evolved in the internet world are very different from what we used to. Think of Britanica Encyclopedia, it is a product of collaboration of a very elit group of intellectuals, a small group of people working together, probably in the same location for a long period of time. Then we have Wikipedia. It is collaboration but it is done by many people, with different levels of education, in different locations and don't even know each other and interestingly enough, have no intention in making a profit. Good information used to be expensive, owned by a elite few, is now free. The concept of collaboration is there but it is now exist in a very different form that nobody can envisage only a few years ago. When I do any research I always search on the net and always look at what I can find in wikipedia to start with. On another subject, collective decision-making is also accelerated by the use of the internet. In the "Wisdom of Crowds" article the author gives example of a "collective solution" where the people in large group are, in effect, better informed and more rational than any single member might be, and hence making a better decision. The internet allows people to communicate and share information easily hence enabling people to make collective decision 24x7 non-stop around the globe. The key question seems to be - is collective decision-making enabled by technology is really better than decision by a small elite group in a slower pace?
--Williamctam 23:00, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
Collective Decision-making has an important political impact. If a large group of people is able to make better decisions than a small group, then why have representative democracy? If we have the tools to inform the public and enable its participation, why delegate decision making to a group of people with an unknown agenda? Representative democracy was the best solution to real problems: the transaction costs of letting everybody participate and the lack of an informed (educated) public. Both of them tend to be trivial in the future. What could be a possible outcome? Probably the argument will go in the direction of Sunstein's information cocoon: the creation of networks of interest that can be easily manipulated politically, and become polarized. A large group can also be very good at making the wrong decisions, specially where deliberation and politics is a factor.
--Oscar Howell 10:20, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
