Wikipedia isn't written and edited by the "crowd" at all. In fact, 1% of Wikipedia users are responsible for half of the site's edits. Even Wikipedia's founder, Jimmy Wales, has been quoted as saying that the site is really written by a community, "a dedicated group of a few hundred volunteers."
I think your headline is misleading and Vassilis Kostakos should read the book before poking holes.
Surowiecki is very clear about the conditions necessary for a wise crowd to prevail and those conditions are:
1. Diversity of opinion
2. Independence
3. Decentralization
4. Aggregation
If your crowd possesses those qualities then it is wise and then it will be better at making decisions under Surowiecki's paradigm. The crowds used in the research (and the crowd in general) doesn't possess those qualities and therefore is an unfit data set. We should be trying to create the ideal crowd before we can obtain superlative results and not try to get good results from any random crowd.
Limitations in predictions market are well documented (and include Muhammad's points above), and constrain their practical application to a well-defined number of situation.
Crowdsourcing suffers from the same limitations, which is not a problem, as long as you limit its application correspondingly. The problem occur when you stretch it outside the required constraints and yet present the results as "scientific", i.e. as a good proxy for what the crowd thinks.
That's what professor Vassilis Kostakos's theory ultimately comes down to (or should - I don't know, I haven't read his report). Apps like Digg or Amazon's review are not scientific applications of crowdsourcing, and thus their results should not be seen as precise representation of our collective thinking.
Wisdom of Crowds is a crypto-fascist idea; there is no objective truth, there are no facts, truth is what "the crowd" decides it is. You get these unhealthy echo chambers of "activists" setting the agenda.
This article said it best, over three years ago:
DIGITAL MAOISM
The Hazards of the New Online Collectivism
By Jaron Lanier
What I'd like to see is non-fakeable metrics on ecommerce sites: return rates or reorder rates (as appropriate), for example. Or for apps, how many times users open the app per day/week or whatever.
the research is interesting if linked to ideas of unrepresentative or illiberal democracy, as posited by Fareed Zakaria that suggests small interest groups can hijack democratic systems.
television
watching? Two hundred billion hours, in the U.S. alone, every year.
Put another way, now that we have a unit, that's 2,000 Wikipedia projects a
year spent watching television. Or put still another way, in the
U.S., we spend 100 million hours every weekend, just watching the ads.
The physics of participation is much more like the physics of weather
than it is like the physics of gravity. We know all the forces that
combine to make these kinds of things work: there's an interesting
community over here, there's an interesting sharing model over
there, those people are collaborating on open source software. But
despite knowing the inputs, we can't predict the outputs yet because
there's so much complexity.
The normal case of
social software is still failure; most of these experiments don't
pan out. But the ones that do are quite incredible
It's better to do
something than to do nothing. Even lolcats, even cute
pictures of kittens made even cuter with the addition of cute
captions, hold out an invitation to participation. When you
see a lolcat, one of the things it says to the viewer is, "If you have some sans-serif fonts on your computer, you can play
this game, too." And that's message--I can do that, too--is a big change.
media is actually a triathlon, it 's three
different events. People like to consume, but they also like to
produce, and they like to share.
Here's something four-year-olds know: A screen that ships without a mouse ships
broken. Here's something four-year-olds know: Media that's targeted at you but doesn't include you may not
be worth sitting still for. Those are things that make me believe that this is a one-way change. Because four year olds, the
people who are soaking most deeply in the current environment, who won't have to go through the trauma that I have to go
through of trying to unlearn a childhood spent watching Gilligan's
Island, they just assume that media
includes consuming, producing and sharing.
If 15 to 17 hours a day spent online experimenting and experiencing is an average time commitment needed for the average academic to come to terms with social media, and understand the potential it has for learning and teaching – and God help us if it is – then the movement is doomed.
there is simply not enough flexibility and space allotted for open exploration of emerging technologies during working hours
in some regards the emergence of hyperconnectivity arises from working conditions and obstacles to access as much as personal research obsessions.