Peer Production: An Agent of Good or Evil?

In the article “The Hive” written by Marshall Poe, the author defines the role of “information sharing” as one of contribution to the progress of human knowledge through the process of communication and technology. Poe’s view’s on the role of information sharing are portrayed through the history and events leading to the creation of Wikipedia. Along the way, Poe also discusses the two dominant models for universal directories present in the 1990’s, top-down and bottom-up in his article. In doing so, Marshal Poe introduces the power of the community to share information, when given the chance. This paper will analyze Poe’s thoughts on the internet and information sharing through the examination of top-down and bottom-up systems, as well as

17. Environments exist when decision makers lack complete certainty regarding the outcomes of various courses of action, but they are aware of the probabilities associated with their occurrence

Facts are statements that are indisputably true. Truthful statements are authentic because they are widely accepted to be accurate and fit reality. When answering the question “given access to the same facts , how is it possible that there can be disagreements between experts in a discipline?”, one must consider the definition of an expert. For the sake of this paper I am defining an expert as someone who excels in their field , and constantly evolves their knowledge as their field progresses. I believe that disagreements between experts when presented with the same facts, occur because of bias. Bias is a sway towards one side or view of a situation or statement. Therefore I ask , how does someone’s personal bias affect their interpretation

Decision making is affected by the Group Think because of the lack of openness that should be displayed and offered by everyone involved. The development of the organization is dependent on the ability of the group to make decisions that are thought through and not made solely on pressures and accepted or narrow minded ways that are not thought out.

A little more than half of the team has primary strengths characterized as thinkers with an even mix of theoretical and practical thinking. The rest have strengths that lean toward risking or doing. There is also an even mix of the independent and collaborative decision making.

Many different points of view are spoken, each with their own opinions.

While the input of experts is

There are two threats to team effectiveness. First, the Asch effect, when an individual’s judgement is distorted by an incorrect but unanimous opposition, and second, group think, when a cohesive in-group members choose unanimity over appraisal of alternative courses of action (Kreitner & Kinicki, 2013, pp. 290, 292). Diversity is important to mitigate the Asch effect and group think.

First, I describe the concept of groupthink. According to one journal, ‘The concept of groupthink is quite popular nowadays and has considerable practical value, because it not only is at variance with research results that indicate the performance of highly cohesive groups (e.g., Keller, 1986), but also provides a detailed description of how an important problem in cohesive decision-making groups occurs’. (Joseph M, p.229). Groupthink sometime leads group big mistakes. If people consider things by a group, they may come to the wrong answer even though that thing is so simply when people think alone. It is because people tend not to doubt the result found by everyone and hesitate to raise an objection to the proposal. These tendencies are kinds of characteristics of groupthink. The former is illusion of unanimity and the latter is self censorship. Why that tendency is happened? In my opinion, people think in the back of their mind ‘I don’t have to take all responsibility because this conclusion

   After last weeks lecture on FOSS services, I would agree with Dr. Borland’s argument when he states “that the development and structure of many FOSS communities are now inspiring a new generation of citizens to consider how they can become more than simply consumers, by engaging as active participants in digital community-based collaborations.” (Borland, 2016) In regards to this weeks lecture, I was caught off-guard at first to see that Wikipedia was the topic. Wikipedia is defined as “a free-access, free-content Internet encyclopedia, supported and hosted by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,” that purposely encourages members of the general public to become involved in the creation and editing of its articles (Wikipedia, 2015,

For Wikipedia to become what it is today, along with other websites that freely share information such as social media, is in its origins by the founders of the web and in sites such as The Well,

With the potential of having many opinions within the group, it can be difficult and time costly to ultimately reach a consensus. As individuals, we are all rhetoricians and have different methods of communication. When it comes to discussing our opinions and persuading group members of our ideas, arguments are sometimes created because of the diversity within the group. What matters is whether the argument is productive or not. “While there are many unproductive arguments, others generate some of the most creative joint thinking we ever achieve together” (Mercer, 74). Unfortunately, in the case of groupthink, arguments tend to be avoided at all costs.

Although Wikipedia’s reliability remains questionable, its obvious success cannot be denied as it has created an environment in which users can freely share their ideas in an easiest and most convenient way. It is the first site to pave the way for knowledge and information sharing by making use of users worldwide. By attracting contributors and inviting them to share knowledge without forcing them into bearing any commitments, the site now encompasses an unbelievably huge amount of global knowledge. This is its most remarkable success. Wikipedia now is playing an important role in the global process of sharing and receiving knowledge with many languages supported. Ranked as one of the most frequently visited sites on Earth, Wikipedia is still

Authoritative epistemology occurs when an analyst relies on another person’s authority to make a judgement. Their “basis of knowledge resides in a reference to something more

Assumptions in the title of this essay imply that results, theories and laws resulting from the current system of peer review multiple perspectives produce completely infallible objective truth, this is a false premise. Whilst the group of knowers known as the scientific community have collectively less bias than one lone knower trying to understand the universe, there is still collective and engrained level of institutional bias. The same problems of confirmation bias and expectation are present in a group of knowers just as they are with one single knower. According to Karl Popper (1902-1994) the best way to eliminate any expectation and confirmation bias was to falsify and disprove rather than confirm one’s hypothesis and predictions. Popper argues: no matter how convincing an argument or theory is, all that is needed to disprove it is one piece of valid counterclaiming evidence. Whilst this theory is valid on an individual level, it really becomes an effective tool in the objectivity of science on a large scale. Despite this attempt at objectifying and ‘protecting against’ error and bias it is inadequate due to inherent flaws in the scientific method. Induction, moving from the specific to the general, is the key element in scientific logic. Any theory or law ‘proved’ through this logic has some key flaws: the main flaw being that inductive logic can never be certain of any event happening or of any prediction. Richard van de Lagemaat