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 |