Book Review: The Wisdom of Crowds, by James Surowiecki (Doubleday, 2004, $24.95)

Wisdom of the Blogoshere, by James Surowiecki?

James Surowiecki's sequel to "Wisdom of the Crowds," if one is contemplated, might well delve into the phenomenon described in his original book as it applies to the Internet or, more specifically, the blogoshere. A discussion of the growing competition (some say, confrontation) between the mainstream media (MSM) and bloggers to arrive at more accurate assessments of political, economic and sociological events would enhance, and indeed advance, public understanding of how the conduits through which we obtain our news is changing. This especially clear with respect to recent incidents: the bogus military service documents reported by Dan Rather of CBS, and the Able Danger data-mining effort that produced excellent intelligence that was discounted by a risk-adverse legalistic culture and the consensus-seeking 9/11 Commission.

While Surowiecki touched on the Google experience, he does not explore unique attributes of the blogoshere or so-called New Media: access, interconnectivity, interaction, near anonymity, independence, immediacy, self-correction, diversity of backgrounds and ideas, decentralization, cooperation, coordination, consolidation, and reference capabilities. However, unlike the Iowa Electronic Markets, little is invested with each contribution other than one's reputation for insightful analysis and credibility. Less directly affected are the political outcome of an issue or election and an ability to sell advertising based on attracting blogsite hits.

My experience with FreeRepublic.com shows favorable attributes in abundance. Although FreeRepublic is more aptly described as a voluntary self-funded electronic message board with over 100,000 members, several thousand of which are usually active at any given time covering a wide variety of interests, it is usually included with blogsites as a source of breaking news stories and photos, extended news/activism, editorials and member opinions, philosophical issues of government, general culture and topical humor.

Posts to FreeRepublic by FReepers, as members are known affectionately, come in two varieties: the original news story or "vanity" posting to start a "thread," and the subsequent responses by readers of the thread directed toward the original poster or any and all other respondents. In this manner information is exchanged, processed and built on in a remarkably short period of time. It is not usual to have 40-50 subsequent posts, and 1000-1500 "views," within a half-hour. Long-running threads may top 30,000 posts.

"Live" threads that run concurrent with a televised event such as a Senate hearing on a judicial nominee, a House committee policy debate, a former president's memorial service, a national tragedy like The Columbia Shuttle disaster and Hurricane Katrina, or Sunday talk shows may garner anywhere between 500 and 5000 postings, separate from a larger number of "views." Well known bloggers and talks show hosts such as Hugh Hewitt say they consult FreeRepublic up to 20 times a day to stay abreast of news stories and opinion.

The source news service (AP, Reuters, Yahoo) story, newspaper story or column, or television news show typically provide the focus, with multiple postings appearing when several sources cover the same material. Often ancillary background materials and analyses or relevant links are contributed on a given thread. Nevertheless, the focus or central theme of a thread assists coordination. Offbeat tangents also may occur.

On popular topics, posts are fast-paced. Judgments can range from the helpful, to the harsh and, yes, to the inane, so the task for the reader is to sort through the offerings, separating valuable comments from the frivolous. There are virtually no restrictions other than to be civil, although transgressors may find their postings removed by an Admin Moderator, if not by the patriotic and conservative founder, Jim Robinson.

Occasionally, "trolls," or ideological deviants, will be identified and voted off the island by other posters and removed by the moderator. This is one instance where herding can take place, though examples abound. More often, however, once a viewpoint is expressed, the group moves on to comment on other aspects. Some meritorious postings will be bumped" to the top of the dynamic, updating list to give them more visibility while other members may be sent a "ping" calling attention to a thread on a subject of prior interest or expertise. In this way, the group coordinates its responses while seeking additional involvement and comments. When used to collaborate in sponsoring a particular perspective in order to overwhelm another point of view, it can sometimes be counterproductive, yet on the larger threads the sheer volume ensures diverse opinions. Few posters are ever barred and none can, acting individually, change or cancel a post.

As distinguished from a small group, committee or task force formed to study or solve a problem, posters voluntarily participate where the title of the thread has caught their interest, frequently where they bring some expertise or experience, though it is the independence and diversity of participants that enhance one's understanding of a subject--until the topic is exhausted There is little incentive to compromise or to seek a consensus, and those with preconceived mindsets or nonsensical postings are upbraided. Their participation exhibits authentic and unlimited (boundaryless) cooperation to achieve smart outcome.

Admittedly, the underlying mindset is political and can divert outcomes, but the more specific the theme, the more technical accuracy is achieved. For instance, Dan Rather's documents were identified as bogus before his broadcast had ended because one FReeper recognized they could not have been typed on the IBM Selectric typewriter. This hypothesis was advanced by Little Green Footballs blogsite where a blogger showed how it was probable the Rather documents were of recent production using MS Word software. In today's vernacular, Rather's documents were "swift-boated" with irrefutable evidence and compelling logic.

On the other hand, with respect to the Able Danger task force and the 9/11 Commission, posters on FreeRepublic early on drew attention to the lack of diversity and to the political motivations of members of the small group that appeared, by all statements by the co-chairmen, to have as a primary goal to force a consensus by avoiding controversial issues. Instead of fulfilling their mandate to attempt to portray a true picture of our intelligence and the causes of 9/11, they were willing merely to go through the motions.

Thus, there was strong evidence of what Surowiecki calls "confirmation bias," a tendency not only to interfere with a fair and impartial examination of all aspects of the 9/11 attack and key political operatives, but to discount the negating effects of legal, Congressional and media oversight of intelligence collection and processing while documentation and testimony was selectively assembled for the Commission final report, despite the competence and experience of those involved. Recall, it was at the 11th hour that a draft was changed to say there was no "collaborative relationship" between al-Qaeda and Iraq to "collaborative operational relationship." Soon after, the mainstream media dropped this nuanced view of the Commission.

Although 9/11 Commission members criticized both the Clinton and Bush administrations, great energy was applied to achieve balance and not to embarrass members who also tended to be both vocal and insistent on certain outcomes regarding Commission findings. Also coursing through deliberations was a persistent tendency to admit, and even apologize for, an inability to grasp the multifaceted intelligence complexities, particularly by one of the chairmen. Furthermore, there was a tendency for the chairman to state popular positions as they played to the applause of the crowd and in the media, thereby forfeiting any appearance of objective impartiality. Simply, the Commission's results reflected the lack of a devil's advocate to introduce dissenting views. In fact, Philip Zelikow, Executive Director, attacked by the Times for prior relationships, attempted to prove his objectivity by not publishing material contrary to the day's conventional wisdom.

Other ground rules seemed to be in place. Presidential administrations were to be portrayed as sharing equally in blame. The short window of opportunity of the current administration to effect change through an inherited bureaucracy, much in evidence at the CIA, was ignored. Commission members with key roles in prior administrations were not to be called as witnesses. Moreover, little effort was expended to investigate evidence tampering by either former officials or sitting Commission members though their roles were central to the problem, if it appeared that it might cause embarrassment or outcries from a collaborative MSM.

In another, earlier age without today's high-speed communication technology and ubiquitous services, such sharing and building of information would not have been possible. Strangely, in the parallel news universe that exists today, one cannot imagine the rapidity of feedback to, for instance, the Letters Editor of a major newspaper, being able to read, sort, select, edit and publish or return feedback to a particular off-base journalist in sufficient timely detail to provide meaningful factual additions, where omitted, or corrections.

Thus, most columnists of highly partisan newspapers, e.g., The New York Times, lose contact with their readers, and become disconnected from reality, even when aided by an ombudsman. Consequentially, frauds such as Jayson Blair, Rick Bragg, Stephen Glass, Jack Kelley and Janet Cooke go unchallenged until long after grievous damage has been done to the reputation of their unquestioning employers whose primary aims so often are to promote their own and to destroy their opposition rather than to get the story right. If mischaracterization of events fits their agenda, even if it has a fictional tone, as long as it expresses the views of the managing editors, in sync with the perceived tastes of the bulk of readers, it is published.

Only one test truly exists: the facts of the story or its slant must be plausible. As they say in the business that writes the first draft of history, "Truth is whatever we want it to be." First impressions count, so inaccurate stories are exceedingly difficult to refute. Even if the editors admit error, which is rare, they would not provide the correction with the same prominence as the original sin of omission or error commission. Practically speaking, this means that problems that afflicted the Rather report and the 9/11 Commission, due to their political nature, went largely unreported, or worse, unaddressed as part of a campaign of deception.

In this Internet age, journalists and news sources alike are on notice that they can no longer get away with the gross sloppiness or deceitful treatment of subjects as in the past eras. The MSM must move over to make way or disappear. They are no longer the only game in town. Declining circulation figures, even when accurate, provide stark testimony to the trust lost by traditional media. A reputation for reliability and credibility once lost is nearly impossible to regain when so many new more reliable and vastly more timely news sources and opinion are available to new generations of young technically-savvy news consumers.

That said, it should be borne in mind that it is one thing to be smart about assessing the true situation, its causes and alternative remedies. But it is another thing to actually choose the right course of action, based on a knowledge and consideration of currently available resources, physical or budgetary, and to refashion and execute plans of action. Diverse independent opinions on the Internet may often outperform the small group or committee structure in the cognition or assessment role, but an authoritarian command will remain the most efficient structure to accomplish the necessary tasks. However, that command will operate at maximum effectiveness if it is open to timely feedback on results achieved, as well as the dysfunctional problems that inevitably occur, and if it is sufficiently flexible to adjust plans to address new developments. In catalyzing self-correction, the wisdom of the crowds will then have a beneficial influence in execution too.

To the extent that the Internet facilitates access to the public forum for the discussion of policy issues, the future of democracy has never been brighter. In other words, the Internet allows the tapping large reservoirs of collective intelligence, and of secondary importance, provides a sort of social safety valve by giving expression to all ideas. While mindsets and biases can not be banished, they are usually offset by opposing opinions in a way that diminishes the influence of wealth, race, gender, educational level or prior experience, to name some factors that skew results where participants do not have a comparable degree of anonymity. Similarly, there are no editor positions filled by those who knew or were related to a boss or owner, as nepotism breeds incompetence at certain newspapers, or where looks, hair, weight, etc., inject an artificial bias. Instead, insightful or valued comments are given prominence mainly because they have merit.

One can be certain that no one will herald Internet messaging as a return to a pure form of democracy, but representative democracy will be enlivened by the immediate feedback from an attentive crowd in a way never before possible. As distinguished from an election in which many disinterested or uninformed individuals render their collective judgment on leaders, the voluntary participation of assertive or opinionated elements of the lay public serves as an early warning system that alerts politicians and media of the stakes, rewards and pitfalls ahead for policy positions. It is a crowd-driven assessment worth its weight in better governance that keeps leaders connected to their constituents and, in a broader sense, to reality. In short, the Internet permits better informed, smarter decisions as it assists all of us in our pursuit of happiness.

"Occasionally, "trolls," or ideological deviants, will be identified and voted off the island by other posters and removed by the moderator"

Doesn't this, by definition, remove us from the "wise crowd" category in that we are not diverse?

Seriously.

Democracy is still the rule of fools by fools. While of divers roots, does no one else note the similarity between 'demon' and 'demotic'? Oh well, it is a heavy burden.

I had been accused of spamming by a certain FR because I happened to disagree with the poster on a certain subject. I did not post the same comment over and over I commented in variations of a theme while sticking with the original premise, but he has followed my posts I posted on different threads and has come to the conclusion it was spam.

If a person is interested or even disturbed by a certain subject and if the person responds to all the posts regarding the subject but does not use the exact same line in every thread and every post than the poster cannot be accused of spam.

It very much depends on the makeup of ''the crowd''.

You put two half-wits together, you don't get a full-wit, you get a quarter-wit. Three half-wits make a Sixth-wit. Four together make an eighth-wit.

Five or more it gets more complicated; The progression becomes logrithmic, and creates more ''Progressives''.

Critical Mass is achieved when you get 100 or more half-wits in one group: intelligence actually goes negative, and creates several unstable isotopes; some of which are known as the DNC, ACLU, DU, or a Sheehan for a few examples.

Herding is often a weakness where there are not sufficient substantive contrary observations.

Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried.

Doesn't this, by definition, remove us from the "wise crowd" category in that we are not diverse?

Not necessarily: we still have libertarians, "paleocons", "neocons", and even liberals participate as long as they don't get too "trollish". There's quite a bit of diversity. An analogy might be that reckless drivers are filtered out by traffic cops...

Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried.

Actually, the argument has been made that monarchy is less oppressive. For example, European monarchies' taxation seldom exceeded 15%, while the same nations under democracy saw 40%, 50% and higher taxes. The difference is that the monarch legitimately fears the guillotine if he dares raise taxes too high. Elected officials don't have the same fear.

Taxation (incidence and rate) is but one aspect of governing. Too often monarchs did not formulate the smartest policies, let alone their execution.

Taxation (incidence and rate) is but one aspect of governing.

True.

Too often monarchs did not formulate the smartest policies, let alone their execution.

"Too often democratic governments did not formulate the smartest policies, let alone their execution." The question is, which is worse? It isn't a priori obvious that the democratic government is less bad.

The difference is that the monarch legitimately fears the guillotine if he dares raise taxes too high. Elected officials don't have the same fear.

Well, then; it's easy to see the way forward out of our present mess!

Well, then; it's easy to see the way forward out of our present mess!

Yeah, but it's worlds tougher to get folks revved up to guillotine an elected official. For one thing, quite a few heads would have to roll, especially at first. But more importantly, the "elected" government has PR on its side: when they rape the nation, we take it quietly because we believe that it's "the people" raping us, not a greedy politician. Notice that even Freepers have been defending unconstitutional, unjust laws because they're "the will of the people".

Well, I have to say that ANY topic on FR can get a serious (heated) discussion with evidence I find stunning. Consider the debate over TWA 800, or the JFK assassination or Abraham Lincoln. While I don't agree with some Freepers on many of these topics, I'm always amazed at the wealth of intelligence, knowledge, and evidence they can brint to a topic.

It isn't a priori obvious that the democratic government is less bad.

True, but my point is that the democratic process is enhanced by the Internet, which allows a greater number of timely competing opinions to enter the public forum where they can be challenged, rejected, amended, etc. Argumentation is good. Contrast the hypothesis in which I (alone?) respond to your letters to an editor over a 1-3 week period. The blogoshere, including FreeRepublic, serves democracy.

Well, a metaphorical guillotine severing the 'public servant' nomenklatura from their supposed pension and other financial benefits ought to suffice.

Wisdom of crowds? I could not disagree more strongly.

Example no. 1. In a kindergarten they found a cute litlle mouse. They start discussing about it, then the question came: male or female. As they could not decide, they took a vote. The girls voted female, the boys male. More girls, therefore (sic!) the mouse was female.

Example no. 2. A college professor went to study how they teach math in school. To his dismay, he found that in a class students added fractions by adding numerators together and denominators together. He explained them the right method (as he knew it) to do it, then went to other classes. Two weeks later, back to the first class he visited, he found out that the students were still using the wrong method. When he asked why, a student told him; “There was a lot of dissent to his method, so the teacher allowed the students to take a vote, which method they prefer. Her method won.”

Example no. 3. Twelve people voted 12 to 0 that OJ Simpson is not guilty.

The Wisdom of Reagan

Well, a metaphorical guillotine severing the 'public servant' nomenklatura from their supposed pension and other financial benefits ought to suffice.

No way José. The politician isn't in it for a pension. He's in it for the bribes he can collect while in office, including those which are actually paid after he leaves office, and for the "consulting fees" he gets to use his connections to influence his successors. Much of that is theoretically illegal, but not convictable unless you can prove a direct quid pro quo. Some thought will convince you that eliminating this graft is impossible.