Attending the 3rd lecture last week about the wisdom of the crowd was somehow answering some questions that have been staying around my mind for sometime. Maybe it is not directly related to the topic that we discussed, but I found some point in this topic that related to this matter. What I am trying to say is about political issue in my country, Indonesia.
As you know, before the monetary crisis in 1997-1998, Indonesia was rules by Suharto for more than 30 years. We call that era as “orde baru” which means, new era after the old era under Sukarno. One main differences about Indonesia under Suharto and Indonesia at the present time is about the freedom of speech, where before was very limited. As example, it was very easy to ban the newspaper who criticizes the government on Suharto era.
But now, freedom of speech is something that Indonesian citizen can enjoy. News contain critics to the government is something that we can find in daily basis. Same things happen in the Parliament. Before it was like a choir sing a “yes” song every time they made a decision. But now, we can find the Member of Parliament argue to each other opinions.
As I believe that democracy, which contains the freedom of speech where every one can express their opinion freely, is the thing that will bring my country to a better situation. Because, when anyone can express their opinion, I believe that we can find the best solution for all. The most important improvement that I expect to happen was the significant decrement in corruption, as a leader can not easily do the corruption as people around him will watch him.
However, what I expect to happen is not really happen. We can find an improvement here and there but it is not really as what I was thinking what it would be. Somehow, Indonesia becomes a very crowded place. Newspaper is uncontrollable and sometime unethical, and the worst thing is, the corruption is still on its previous rate. All of these things make me reconsider what I believe before. Maybe, the democracy is not the answer. Maybe freedom of speech is not suitable in my country. And maybe, the crowd is not wise enough to find the solution on the very complicated problem in Indonesia.
But last week, I kind of find the answer that actually, the wisdom of the crowd is like the two sides of the coins. It can be something that makes the things worse, and at the same time it can be something that makes things better. There are at least three pre-condition needed to make the wisdom of the crowd becomes something constructive. It has to be diverse, independence and decentralize& aggregate.
Diversity is the first precondition. Diversity in this case is refers to diversity of opinion which will expand the number of possible solutions to problem and lead to higher possibility to find the best solution. It is useless to have lots of opinion which are not diverse, because it will not lead to the new ways of solving the problem. With high number of possible solution, group can also find the new way to solve the problem that never been thought before.
As you know, before the monetary crisis in 1997-1998, Indonesia was rules by Suharto for more than 30 years. We call that era as “orde baru” which means, new era after the old era under Sukarno. One main differences about Indonesia under Suharto and Indonesia at the present time is about the freedom of speech, where before was very limited. As example, it was very easy to ban the newspaper who criticizes the government on Suharto era.
But now, freedom of speech is something that Indonesian citizen can enjoy. News contain critics to the government is something that we can find in daily basis. Same things happen in the Parliament. Before it was like a choir sing a “yes” song every time they made a decision. But now, we can find the Member of Parliament argue to each other opinions.
As I believe that democracy, which contains the freedom of speech where every one can express their opinion freely, is the thing that will bring my country to a better situation. Because, when anyone can express their opinion, I believe that we can find the best solution for all. The most important improvement that I expect to happen was the significant decrement in corruption, as a leader can not easily do the corruption as people around him will watch him.
However, what I expect to happen is not really happen. We can find an improvement here and there but it is not really as what I was thinking what it would be. Somehow, Indonesia becomes a very crowded place. Newspaper is uncontrollable and sometime unethical, and the worst thing is, the corruption is still on its previous rate. All of these things make me reconsider what I believe before. Maybe, the democracy is not the answer. Maybe freedom of speech is not suitable in my country. And maybe, the crowd is not wise enough to find the solution on the very complicated problem in Indonesia.
But last week, I kind of find the answer that actually, the wisdom of the crowd is like the two sides of the coins. It can be something that makes the things worse, and at the same time it can be something that makes things better. There are at least three pre-condition needed to make the wisdom of the crowd becomes something constructive. It has to be diverse, independence and decentralize& aggregate.
Diversity is the first precondition. Diversity in this case is refers to diversity of opinion which will expand the number of possible solutions to problem and lead to higher possibility to find the best solution. It is useless to have lots of opinion which are not diverse, because it will not lead to the new ways of solving the problem. With high number of possible solution, group can also find the new way to solve the problem that never been thought before.
The second precondition is Independence. It is important to ensure that people’s opinion is not influenced by other’s people opinion. Because if they are not independence in making the decision, the firs problem arise is the opinion will not be diverse. Other than that, the problem that will lead groups in making wrong decision is that one person’s mistakes will be linked to the other group member’s mistakes as his decision is influenced by the person who makes mistakes. As result, the groups will most likely make a wrong decision.
Finally, the third precondition is that the opinions have to be decentralized and aggregated. As all members of the group need to make contribution, the way of collecting opinion have to be decentralized. It will guarantee that no one at the top is dictating the group’s answer. When it comes to a decision, there is must be a way to summarize all the opinion so that the decision made is an aggregate decision.
By having those three preconditions to facilitate a group to make a decision, constructive crowd intelligence will be achieved. However, of course, it is not easy to create an environment which meets all three preconditions. But actually, it is the reason why, internet technology with web 2.0 become a new revolution in the computer industry. Wikipedia, Google, Youtube or even Blog is an example on how powerful the wisdom of the crowd is when the entire precondition is achieved.
I think I don’t have to explain further how wikipedia so successful in replacing the old heavy and bulky traditional encyclopedia with so many reason. But the main reason is simply because wikipedia, where people from all around the world can contribute has wisdom of the crowd, crowd intelligence which is smarter that the smartest people in the world.
Back again to the problem in Indonesia, I assume that those precondition is not exist in Indonesia. That’s why even when people can freely speak out their opinion, the powerful wisdom of the crowd is not exist. However, I do realize that it is not the only reason. Even when all precondition have been achieved, not necessarily all problem will be fixed easily.
There is actually, at least one more thing to considerate, which is what kind of issue that we need to make a decision of. For some issue which is free of value, e.g. technical issue, the best solution maybe will be obtained easily. But for some issue where people’s value involved in it like political or religion issue, wisdom of the crowd will not straight away be achieved, even though all preconditions have been achieved.
Wisdom of the crowd is anyway, just a method to find the best solution of a problem. It maybe, for some cases is better than other methods, but it is still not perfect. Finally, I conclude that there is no perfect method that is created by human, unless if it comes from God. :)
