I just found this in an old notebook. Apparently I wrote it a couple years ago. Most of it seems to make more sense to me now.
Wisdom of Crowds | Design by Committee |
---|---|
Both: Participants may be biased. | |
Bias averages out | Bias creates “riders” |
Not much work | Lots of work |
No consensus required | Seeks consensus. Decisions may be postponed to avoid stirring up trouble. |
Minority (“special”) interests can be publicised but are often ignored | Minority interests are not ignored |
No experts—skepticism (Presumption is that a random individual is not an expert.) | All experts—openness |
Lossy, mass communication (of arguments, etc.) | Tedious explicit communication |
Both: No overarching design or uniting vision. | |
Nobody cares | Possibly competing visions |
Simple output. | Unbounded complexity in output. |
Immediate feedback. | Long-term, invisible feedback. |
Individuals have low individual impact. | Individuals are influential. |
Neglecting the topic somehow doesn't matter. | Neglect causes warts (that is, areas where the design is painfully bad —ed.) |
Product needn't be understood (markets) | Product is ideas. |
Mechanism for approaching a good result exists (market; averaging) | Democracy (voting) and consensus are the only such mechanisms. |
Interfaces are well-defined before work starts (ballot; prices) | Interfaces have to be designed. |
Individuals can't introduce bureaucracy | Individuals sometimes manage to introduce bureaucracy |