The wisdom of crowds : why the many are smarter than the few

By J. Surowiecki. 2005

793 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/3ee5b2fe0678c766e0b72565f9cc6cd4a6b99fb9

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

AMEE Guide 32: e-Learning in medical education Part 1: Learning, teaching and assessment (2008, background): “While some see this as a positive development (Surowiecki 2005; Tapscott & Williams 2006), others are more critical of this phenomena (Keen 2007).”
The Future of Work in the ‘Sharing Economy’. Market Efficiency and Equitable Opportunities or Unfair Precarisation? (2016, unknown): “ix The hype on crowdsourcing originated with the popularization of the ‘wisdom of crowds’ narrative (Surowiecki, 2004) by Howe (2006, 2008).”
A collective navigation hypothesis for homeward migration in anadromous salmonids (2016, background): “Today, we know this effect as the ‘wisdom of the crowd’ (Surowiecki 2004) or the ‘many wrongs principle’ (Simons 2004) averag ing over many independent estimates tends to suppress outliers.”
Community Engineering for Innovations: The Ideas Competition as a Method to Nurture a Virtual Community for Innovations (2009, background): ““Large Groups of people are smarter than an elite few, no matter how brilliant – better at solving problems, fostering innovation, coming to wise decisions, even predicting the future” (Surowiecki 2005).”
Tournaments for Ideas (2010, background): “”(29) Popularized by James Surowiecki’s 2004 bestseller of the same title, the wisdom of crowds proposes that ideas gathered from many ordinary people are at least as good as or even better than those proposed by the experts.(30) Yahoo Answers is a modern day demonstration of the concept.”
Capitalizing on the crowd: The monetary and financial ecologies of crowdfunding (2017, background): “It is by differentiating between projects, and thereby deciding which is worthy of capitalizing and which is not, that the collective intelligence and ‘wisdom of the crowds’ (Surowiecki, 2004) is said to be brought to bear (cf. Borch, 2012).”
The Passions and the Interests: Unpacking the 'Sharing Economy' (2016, background): “The optimism on crowdsourcing originated with the popularisation by Howe (2006, 2008) of the ‘wisdom of crowds’ narrative (Surowiecki, 2004).”
Forecasting in social settings: The state of the art (2020, background): “The second strategy is the mathematical aggregation of the individual judgments that have been produced independently, also known as “wisdom of crowds” (Surowiecki, 2005).”
Science vs Conspiracy: Collective Narratives in the Age of Misinformation (2014, background): “Despite the enthusiastic rhetoric about the wisdom of crowds [10, 11] – i.e. collective decisions are wiser than judgements of single individuals – the role of socio-technical system in enforcing informed debates and their eﬀects on the public opinion still remain unclear.”
Regular rates of popular culture change reflect random copying (2007, background): “…strategy, as copying can tend toward baseless decisions, whereas independent decision making may lead to a rational, collective b wisdom Q of a group (Surowiecki, 2004) and/or optimal solutions through a process analogous to natural selection (e.g., Crow & Aoki, 1982a, 1982b, 1984; Henrich, 2004).”
Opportunities and challenges of Web 2.0 for vaccination decisions. (2012, background): “Information available on the World Wide Web can be more reliable, accurate and up-to-date than that found in printed brochures or printed encyclopaedias, e.g. because public health agencies increasingly invest in online publications or due to the so-called wisdom of the crowd phenomenon (i.e. hetero”
Swarm intelligence in humans: diversity can trump ability (2011, background): “Much of the recent attention regarding SI has been focused on the comparison of group performance and that of high-performing individuals, asking whether the wisdom of the crowd can beat an expert’s opinion (Surowiecki 2004).”