W6 : How important are contributions of a single individual in the sea of "collective intelligence"? / 박소민(SOMIN PARK)

 1. Summary

Very important! If individuals are not gathered, there is no "group" in the first place. Each individual contribution brings together a mass of information and becomes a collective intelligence. If a person has a wrong idea or knowledge, his contribution is also important. This is because even wrong information can be shared and corrected.

2. Interesting point

I remember an example of success thanks to collective intelligence: Pixar

Steve Jobs bought Pixar in 1986 for $5 million but he sold back to Disney for $7.5 billion in 2006. Pixar has grown their value through co-creation, or collective intelligence, since its acquisition. People who were ordinary gathered together to create synergy.

3. Discussion point

What is the standard for calling collective intelligence? Is it also collective intelligence that just two to four people come together to solve the problem?

Comments

  1. Park Chan Young (박찬영)April 11, 2021 at 7:05 AM

    I think diversity is necessary to achieve collective intelligence. Therefore, it is unreasonable to call a few people collectively intelligence. Therefore, it is unreasonable to call a few people collectively intelligent. So, Collective Intelligence needs many people.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

W7: Review of Good Faith Collaboration / Suyoung Han

  Review of Good Faith Collaboration 1) Summary – Wikipedia from an ethnographic perspective: focusing on collaboration within the community Wikipedia, which is called the world's largest encyclopedia, is an open community and is becoming more and more solid with the participation of various people, conflict, and resolution. In this respect, Joseph M. Reagle Jr. attempted to explain the culture that takes place within Wikipedia. The book describes how Wikipedia was created and what it values. In particular, he described Wikipedia in a book from an ethnographic point of view, and focused on cooperation within the community. 2) Interesting Point – Wikipedia is simple, but not I realized that Wikipedia is not just a site made up of community activities, but rather a collaborative activity that is carried out concretely for the goal. Before I read the book, Wikipedia was an encyclopedia site that only gave me information (even I didn't trust the information), and I thought ...
Read more

W10 : Can we think of some example of how Internet has changed our culture? / 박소민(SOMIN PARK)

 1. Summary  The Internet has changed our culture so much. First, through the Internet, we can meet people regardless of distance. People in each country communicated over the Internet and reduced the barriers to distance by creating relationships. Also, the Internet has let us stay away from books. When we want to find expertise, we can get it from Wikipedia or Google. Even information in books can be obtained through e-books, reducing access to libraries and paper books. 2. Interesting point Further to the above, our brains are gradually degenerating because we don't have to remember information. We are constantly interrupted by SNS notifications ringing on our phones when we do something, so our concentration and attention are being reduced. Furthermore, the ease of obtaining information online is causing our short-term memory to decline. 3. Discussion point I think the Internet has made it easy to sever a relationship with a person because we can meet another person simply...
Read more

w9: Its often said by teachers that “Wikipedia is a good place to start, but a bad place to finish” why? LiuXinlei

 Its often said by teachers that “Wikipedia is a good place to start, but a bad place to finish” why? In terms of the comprehensiveness of the content, we have to admit the advantages of Wikipedia. For example, Wikipedia is undoubtedly my first choice when I don't understand an event at all. It is convenient, fast and comprehensive, and I can spend the least time to understand the whole content of this fact as comprehensively and neutrally as possible. But in the process of in-depth learning, Wikipedia can only be used as an introductory content, because in learning we need to understand this fact as much as possible, and we need to understand the different views of scholars in different regions on the same event. There will be different theories. Some theories seem to be not neutral or even discriminatory or ethnographic at present (such as Marxism and Marxism in China), and it is not suitable for Wikipedia. Be shown. In short, Wikipedia has a very low threshold for users. It assu...
Read more