The social psychology of the wisdom of crowds.

167 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

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

A User's Guide to Debiasing (2014, background): “Typically, averaging these within-person answers provides about half of the accuracy gain that could be achieved by averaging guesses from two different people (Larrick et al., 2012).”
Enhancing Crowd Wisdom Using Explainable Diversity Inferred from Social Media (2018, background): “The aggregated judgment of a crowd sampled from a large set of individuals is more accurate than most individuals [1] [2].”
Identifying Expertise to Extract the Wisdom of Crowds (2015, methodology): “aggregation method is the simple average of the judgments (Larrick et al. 2011),1 but this approach may be”
Wisdom or Madness? Comparing Crowds with Expert Evaluation in Funding the Arts (2016, unknown): “When crowds have diverse sources of information and expertise with a problem area, they can provide more accurate collective forecasting than can even well-informed individuals (Larrick et al., 2012).”
Forecasting: theory and practice (2020, background): “Mannes et al. (2012) highlight two crucial factors that influence the quality of the average point forecast: individual expertise and the crowd’s diversity.”