Empowering individuals towards collective online production(a must read!)

0 votes

Empowering individuals towards collective online production

Keith Hopper

Solving Problems Collectively
The widespread proliferation of online participatory systems such as wikis and blog networks helped popularize the idea of collective intelligence. Value that emerges from these systems shows that a whole system can appear more intelligent than any individual contribution. As these online participatory systems continue to broaden in application and increase in sophistication, they take on a more targeted and significant role as tools to accomplish focused, productive work. More specifically, online environments will be constructed to collectively solve complex and multifaceted problems. Imagine the possibility of adjusting aspects of an existing, productive online community in order to stimulate the ideal resolution of specific problems, much like a marketplace might be arranged over time to produce the most efficient and valuable transactions.
Existing participatory systems are designed to separately invite online user contributions in one capacity, and to aggregate collective value in another, but few environments attempt to holistically address the production of useful outcomes by moving participation towards meaningful and intelligent results. This determined focus on how best to design participatory environments to solve problems is particularly relevant given the world’s abundance of complex and urgent problems to be addressed. Methods for solving them collectively online have only begun to be explored.

Required Focus on the Individual
The recent surge in Internet contribution—as witnessed by the growth of video and photo sharing and the ubiquity of blogging—has created an odd duality. On one hand, this mass participation holds great promise for building collectively intelligent environments. On the other hand, it is only through the individual motivations of the participants that contributions originate. It is solely the whim of the individual that drives the potential for collective intelligence online. This issue is difficult to embrace when the majority of collective intelligence discourse focuses on the sweeping collaborative potential and not the nuances of individual behavior.
In 1911, William Morton Wheeler observed the collective behavior of an ant colony and labeled it as a “superorganism”. Given the impact of this insight, it is good that he did not instead focus on the importance of why one ant follows another ant’s trail, but this is exactly the type of concentration that the field needs today. Observing overall group behavior and studying the often surprising outcomes of collective systems builds excitement but yields little in the way of guidance when trying to construct these systems. The understanding of individual’s behavior in a collective system helps determine the best design and adaptation of online systems to stimulate intelligent and specific outcomes. Looking at individual motivations to participate becomes critical in understanding how adjustments in the rules, interfaces, and mechanisms of online systems can be used to yield more intelligent outcomes.

Designing Systems That Work
Decentralized peer production environments hold more promise in directing participatory systems towards collectively intelligent outcomes than the traditional approach of using centralized authority to drive individual behavior. The success of open source software development and wikis suggests that production environments based on autonomous individual action have the most potential for large-scale, enduring participation. These systems provide individual freedom and choice for interacting with resources and projects without any single authority dictating individual behavior or focus. It is precisely the individual's response to the freedom inherent in a decentralized system that triggers the desire to participate.

Words like “harness” or “leverage” used to describe value produced through individual participation signals a misguided perspective of centralized authority controlling participants. Seeing individuals as a ready resource to be wheedled and mined for value is, at best, a misunderstanding of how distributed production operates, and at worst, a setup to failure. Individually-motivated activity is the cornerstone of successful participatory environments, and presuming participation while undervaluing the individual causes contributions to evaporate. Cajoling effective production, dictating behavior, and exploiting contributions is inherently counter-productive to participatory environments. Empowering the individual creates beneficial outcomes and cultivates an environment where these contributions are most valuable.

Since the best participatory environments exist to serve individuals and address their interests first and foremost, the heavy-handed, centralized actions or exploitation of participants corrupts an online collective environment irreparably. Ideally, participants develop a feeling of ownership over the environment, and providing such an atmosphere is indispensable to ensure the environment’s continuance.

Designing participatory systems is difficult. The most typical challenge is in obtaining a volume of effective participation. New environments struggle to reach critical mass, while existing environments constantly work to provide the right environmental characteristics to attract valuable contributions and distill value back to participants. These difficulties are becoming more common, as an onslaught of online applications now competes for the attention of contributors, and single participants are stretched thin across multiple environments. The question becomes where to focus when designing decentralized systems in order to stimulate effective participation.

Motivating Effective Participation
Enticing the individual to participate can be challenging, and assuming any one driving force is counterproductive. Investigations by Steven Weber in The Success of Open Source and Yochai Benkler in The Wealth of Networks both highlight that no single motivation can explain voluntary peer production for all participants. Additionally, several intertwined motivating factors are likely within a single individual, creating an unpredictable and complex understanding of contributors.
Due to the highly social nature of online participation, traditional behavioral economics do not apply. It is unlikely that extrinsic motivators, such as financial incentives, provide the panacea to driving effective participation. In fact, financial rewards can negatively influence intrinsic motivations, thus resulting in an overall decrease in effort and participation. Existing participatory systems often make the mistake of assuming contributors are either self-serving or, alternatively, relying on contributors to act only towards addressing a larger, socially beneficial outcome. Contributors, however, are neither purely selfish, nor solely altruistic. Participant drive includes a complex mix of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations that vary by individual.

Participatory systems should focus fundamentally on freedom and autonomy for individuals while presenting irresistible situations for self-directed activity. Furthermore, whether creating an environment that constructs solutions for world peace or one that asks users to upload a photo, this focus on individuals is indispensable. With this in mind, creators of participatory systems should:

• Stimulate unbounded, creative opportunism by providing a commons, or shared set of freely-available resources, which individuals use without concern for waste or misuse

• Cultivate hope and possibility by helping individuals see potential outcomes and avenues to take advantage of potential opportunities

• Offer complete control, ownership, and attribution over what can be contributed, publically viewed, and used by others

• Encourage playful experimentation by providing a safe environment that allows individuals to correct mistakes and reduces their social and financial risks

• Support individual acknowledgement by providing opportunities for contributions to be seen and recognized by a worldwide audience

• Offer varying levels of engagement so participation can grow and change over time

• Stimulate productivity through tools that allow a breadth of novel and creative application

Novel Approaches to Complex Problems
The potential for collectively intelligent systems in the pervasive and interconnected environment of the Internet is unprecedented and essential. The large, complex problems of the world must be addressed through novel approaches that ensure progress towards resolutions.
These challenges will require environments designed to stimulate widespread individual participation and emergent, mutually beneficial outcomes for all.

While it may seem counter-intuitive to focus on the behaviors of individual contributors when thinking collectively, understanding individual behavior and motivation holds promise for designing participatory systems that yield significant results.

To ensure success, collective systems must embrace voluntary, independent participation in a decentralized environment while motivating individuals by supporting the freedom and autonomy of self-directed production.

Taken from:
http://www.oss.net/extra/document/?module_instance=3&Categor...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

brilliant.

now if we could apply that more.

Keith Hopper

could use a course in writing plainly. I found it difficult to get into.

New Hampshire and Ecuador

Yeah well, it doesn't help

Yeah well, it doesn't help that the ideas are so different from what we're used to hearing in these circles! It's great stuff though and I hope people take the time to really absorb it and understand it in a vital sort of way.

--
Host, The Next Step Podcast
http://thenextstep.podomatic.com

More Z-Cult spam?

Fairly pathetic folks.

----
Support The Feal Good Foundation. Watch "Dust to Dust" and "Dust to Deceit" to learn about the ongoing 9/11 Holocaust of dying 9/11 First Responders.

----

"...a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people." -John F. Kennedy

Actually no, I posted this

Actually no, I posted this well before that movie came out. Did you even read it or just had a reflex response?

Damn you're so nice and inviting! It's good to see people that are here to get interested in what others are saying. Cheers to you!

To Quote:
"To ensure success, collective systems must embrace voluntary, independent participation in a decentralized environment while motivating individuals by supporting the freedom and autonomy of self-directed production."

I can see where you get the Zeitgeist reference, very astute observation!

--
Host, The Next Step Podcast
http://thenextstep.podomatic.com

BITCHED up GOV't

WE wouldn't face ALL these problems if we were not changing a form of GOV't into something it was not designed to do for people .....
PEOPLE were to be individuals DOING for themselves....weee

That's so true, although I

That's so true, although I think the reason we have a bitched up govt is because the people were not able to hold onto the original format. The telegraph is a metaphor for the distractions that have led our generations away from active involvement with political decision making.

--
Host, The Next Step Podcast
http://thenextstep.podomatic.com

PEOPLE make the difference

TOLD you before collective can be good or can be bad, as you see in our own GOV't......
weee

and when it's good it's

and when it's good it's paradigm changing, it's what we need. a Republic is a sort of collective. . .just not the control-collective that every understands a collective to imply!

--
Host, The Next Step Podcast
http://thenextstep.podomatic.com

Have you seen this?

http://www.superstructgame.org/s/superstruct_FAQ

Q: What is Superstruct?
A: Superstruct is the world's first massively multiplayer forecasting game. By playing the game, you'll help us chronicle the world of 2019--and imagine how we might solve the problems we'll face. Because this is about more than just envisioning the future. It's about making the future, inventing new ways to organize the human race and augment our collective human potential.

http://killfiat.blogspot.com/

I signed up but never had

I signed up but never had the time to engage in it fully. Seemed like a good idea though. What were the results?

--
Host, The Next Step Podcast
http://thenextstep.podomatic.com

"Participatory systems

"Participatory systems should focus fundamentally on freedom and autonomy for individuals while presenting irresistible situations for self-directed activity. Furthermore, whether creating an environment that constructs solutions for world peace or one that asks users to upload a photo, this focus on individuals is indispensable."

This is the way of the future. . .a bottom-up collective is undeniable at this point as we all become more and more connected. This means that no ONE controls it, EVERY one controls it and determines the flow, which requires full participation and input and free flow of information among all peoples. . .you want to defeat the NWO? Then let us create our world instead of being led along by someone else's. . .

--
Host, The Next Step Podcast
http://thenextstep.podomatic.com

mix it up ??

OK treg I'M back...I am not that hep to your lingo as I usually am too busy for talk.... What exactly is " wiki " not familiar.... I can see your point not to have a commitee because of loosing individualism of thought....You could mix it up with both types of posting to see what you like .... Just suggesting.... I'm not as versed as some at the computer.
says

Like wikipedia.com

Like wikipedia.com

--
Host, The Next Step Podcast
http://thenextstep.podomatic.com

HELP ME

AS a responce to TREG; ONE improvement would be to have a committee
to review postings & comments....THEN post the most solid comments & ideas or combination thereof, that promote this site & the campaign. .. This would insure individual participation & put forward good sound Postings & ideas for comment . This would create a snow ball effect which hopefully gives for the good .
says

I beg to disagree... No Committees

Wiki does not have a committee.. This is what Sancho is talking about.

Here's the Place to discuss changes to this site!!!

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/62683

Post ideas there as it is more relevant there instead of on this thread!

--
Host, The Next Step Podcast
http://thenextstep.podomatic.com

collectivism vs Freedom of individual

Your final paragraph sound like the intent of the U.S. CONSTITUTION.
Congratulations now your getting it.
Collectivism is good for certain uses . As long as those collecting respect the others collecting & contributions.
says

yes, exactly. I didn't

yes, exactly. I didn't write this by the way, but I agree with the ideas presented.

--
Host, The Next Step Podcast
http://thenextstep.podomatic.com

Sancho....

You write often about this theme ....let me just simplify and call your reoccurring theme the "wisdom of crowds" theme.... sure you have discussed more than that but I am summarizing here.

While I enjoy your links and posts, I often think you could be a little more creative -- or go out on a limb -- and give concrete suggestions -- right or wrong. As you know, that's what its all about.

Case in point, "but few environments attempt to holistically address the production of useful outcomes by moving participation towards meaningful and intelligent results." --- well then, spell it out to me... how can or could Daily Paul change or adjust its structure, website, format, rules, whatever to ensure a wiki-like intelligence to spring forth?

I think that I, like you, have been trying to enlighten the R3VOLution, yet it seems to have its own ESS...(evolutionary stable state)...which I find low, stuck in a valley, and some how needs to get up over a hill to an even higher ESS. Thus I posted this here: http://www.dailypaul.com/node/52918 and this one perhaps you will like here: http://www.dailypaul.com/node/62343

As you know, wiki and the rest safely dispel such witchcraft-type conjectures... the DP does not... it lives inside a functioning ESS that tries to propagate to the masses its own uncorrectable? viewpoint/self delusions and paranoia ..... the irony upon ironies, its fearless leader does not buy into it, yet "feeds" it some how.

What steps could Nystrom or some one else do to structure an intelligent system as you see possible?

In Peace & Liberty,
Treg

Yeah, for sure, let me

Yeah, for sure, let me address your two points in order.

"While I enjoy your links and posts, I often think you could be a little more creative -- or go out on a limb -- and give concrete suggestions -- right or wrong. As you know, that's what its all about."

Well, basically right now what I'm doing is seeding ideas. I could call myself a writer, although right now my current situation doesn't give much time for it and so while I have plans for and am working on trying to concretize some of these ideas into usable forms for this movement, until I actually get the time to get to it I use these articles to seed further discussion along these lines. This serves two purposes:

1). It provides people the awareness of these ideas/methods and while many may not be interested at first glance, a portion of the people on here will see it for what it is, attempt to better understand it in larger frameworks, and even internalize the information in order to further spread it.

2). It sort of "primes" the discussion on here so that when I and anyone else does come out with some writing specifically with this movement in mind concerning these subjects, it will be more readily accepted and understood for what it is. . .

"well then, spell it out to me... how can or could Daily Paul change or adjust its structure, website, format, rules, whatever to ensure a wiki-like intelligence to spring forth? . . .What steps could Nystrom or some one else do to structure an intelligent system as you see possible?"

Well, I honestly don't have much in the way of suggestions for this forum specifically. There are some key issues that do slow down constructive dialogue on this forum, though. You have mentioned a few that relate to the way in which people act on the forums, pointing out that it seems to have it's own, somewhat stagnant, evolutionary stable state. I agree. One thing that could be done on the admin side would be to structure the intent of each forum section to better sort out the various angles and uses that people have for this forum. This would increase the overall co-intelligence of the site, as well as make the searching for specific conversations and ideas that much easier. For instance, most things get put into the general forum section which is fine, but there really aren't any place else for some topics to go that are more important than generally banal chatter!

Some suggestions off the top of my head:

1). Create a section specifically for people's speculations and theories. There seems to be more than enough of that and while not everyone would consider their viewpoints as speculative, it would definitely cut down on the amount of "noise" in any one section if people self-regulated in this way.

2). Create a section specifically for dialogues on solutions. It could even be called the "Creating Solutions Dialogue" section. That is where a lot of the forward-thinking, evolutionary stuff would be found. That is where a higher level of maturity would be required and maintained and instead of arguments and flame wars, only open and honest dialogue and feedback would be allowed.

3). Create a section for Economics. I think this movement is very much involved with the issue of economics at all levels, and much of the discussion on here is centered around it. Giving it it's own section would also make it easier for "noobies" to get up to speed on the major economic ideas that float around here, which is always a good thing.

4). Crack down on everyone who "disrespects" other posters. One thing I've seen all to much of on this forum and many other RP forums, is that some people have very condescending attitudes and act in their own way like some sort of "revolutionary elite" who scoff when someone doesn't understand things the same way they do. There is a lot of "troll calling" on here which, perhaps there is something to it as this is a public forum, but it doesn't add anything whatsoever to the dialogue to point out things like that when it's much easier to ignore. Also, it's very common for posters to respond to a thread with ad hominem attacks or in some way displaying that they did not actually read and digest the original post and instead chose to react with some sort of lashing out. This also adds nothing to the dialogue as well as chases away people who otherwise came here to learn and help out. It's ridiculous and should be discouraged heavily from the bottom to the top and back down again.

5). Create a "Disagreements With The CFL" section and the reason is because no one movement or organization is perfect and so what better way to critique and improve it than to have actual discussions about the weak points? Obviously this would also have to be heavily moderated so arguments and flame wars didn't occur, but otherwise there is no reason why adults cannot de-construct and critically analyze the movement they are a part of. As we've known all along, this is no top-down organization and one thing that I see being a possibility is that too many people get too used to doing whats being suggested from "the horse's mouth" and not enough people openly questioning everything!

So, those are my recommendations, what do you think?

As far as using the wiki ideals on here, I don't see a way to do it with a public forum, although it wouldn't be a bad idea if there was created a "Freedom & Liberty" Wiki started! That would be a great way to collect all of our information in one place, as well as provide a resource for the public to better see where we're coming from. This also would necessarily increase the maturity level of all content as all contributors would have to immediately realize that whatever they post will be viewed by more than just our own movement, it is a resource for all.

ps
I browsed your threads you suggested and when I have a chance later I'll read the whole things, but I get the basic idea and I agree to a large extent! I like to refer to Robert Anton Wilson's take on conspiracy which is to say that conspiracies go on all the time, but there are so many different ones, and they can most easily be explained in the simplest ways as you suggested Occam's Razor. He also said some conspiracies are the result of beliefs misunderstanding of the world and fear of chaos. SOMEBODY has to be responsible for all this mess!!! RAW always says that no one ever points to themselves for the cause of this chaos, they always pass the buck(see: Shadow projections). And another angle RAW liked to comically throw in at the end is that large conspiracies do indeed exist! So that accounts for at least some of the paranoia!!! ;-D

--
Host, The Next Step Podcast
http://thenextstep.podomatic.com

Here's a relevant quote!

"Participatory systems should focus fundamentally on freedom and autonomy for individuals while presenting irresistible situations for self-directed activity. Furthermore, whether creating an environment that constructs solutions for world peace or one that asks users to upload a photo, this focus on individuals is indispensable."

--
Host, The Next Step Podcast
http://thenextstep.podomatic.com

Interesting topics

Sancho, what part of the u.s. are you in? I'm in Texas, perchance you live here, I'd be interested in collaborating on something

Sorry man, Illinois. Send

Sorry man, Illinois. Send me an email at foxvalleyfreedom-at-gmail.com and I'll what I can do about putting you into touch with some people working on stuff like this!

--
Host, The Next Step Podcast
http://thenextstep.podomatic.com

Despite the use of the word

Despite the use of the word "collective" this article is awesome! Besides, what is wrong with using collective anyway? We're not talking about a top-down collectivity like what G Edward Griffin talks about! We're talking about a bottom-up collectivity which is what the original republic was all about! The collective views of the people being represented by legislators and lawmen!

This whole Ron Paul movement has been a huge show in collective intelligence and using online forms of creation!

--
Host, The Next Step Podcast
http://thenextstep.podomatic.com

Interesting post !

Dr. Paul cured my apathy

Ron Paul was right

Thank ya.

Thank ya.

--
Host, The Next Step Podcast
http://thenextstep.podomatic.com