Group items tagged

This article focuses on the web 2.0 term "wisdom of crowds" within crowd sourcing, in which Catone explains as meaning "two heads are better than one, and that still more heads will yield even better results." The "Wisdom of crowds" looks at how crowds determine popularity and accuracy on the internet because they are the actions of millions of people. Wikipedia is an example of this concept as it is formed by the collaboration of thousands of users. This article states that according to studies Wikipedia is as accurate as encyclopaedia volumes such as Britannica. This theory comes from the fact that although crowd sourcing enables millions of people to participate, on websites such as Wikipedia it is usually just a few thousand people that contribute. Although it is possible for anyone to edit the website, it is monitored for changes and incorrect information is seen as the exception rather than the rule (Goodin 2005). "Crowdsourcing can be looked at as an application of the wisdom of crowds concept, in which the knowledge and talents of a group of people is leveraged to create content and solve problems." The wisdom of crowds concept can be seen differently when applied to websites such as www.StumbleUpon.com. StumbleUpon allows for users to rate and share web pages. Within a category users can rate with a 'thumbs up' or 'thumbs down' on the page they are given. The ratings not only determine what web pages you are referred to in future, but they allow for others who browse the same category as yourself to see the most relevant (most voted for) pages. As crowd sourcing enables for crowds to put forward their concepts, strategies and problem solving solutions in to practice in one place, the 'wisdom of crowds' concept refers to the way in which the large input from crowds enables particular websites on the internet to function in a way more relevant to its users. Goodin, D. (2005, December 14). 'Nature': Wikipedia is accurate. Retrieve

Crowdsourcing is changing some industries as revealed in 'Business Crowdsourcing: Why the Power of the Crowd is driving the Future of Business' by Jeff Howe. The phenomenon is a threat to organisations that sell what the crowd will do much more cheaply (Howe, 2008). Thank You Steffi for this article as I found it very interesting and insightful. Collective intelligence I believe is essential to the growth of knowledge especially within organisations, relating to my topic of Organization collaborative tools. Companies benefit from crowdsourcing, not only from the ideas they generate through collaboration, but also from the publicity they attract ("Crowdsourcing just got Simpler, Faster and Less Expensive," 2009). Crowdsourcing is vital as pointed out in the article. By stating that Wikipedia is as accurate as Encyclopaedias, I welcome this shift from one point of opinion to a community based perceptive view. The Cambrian House example was perhaps a wonderful representation of crowdsourcing in the form of community collaboration. Cambrian House as a crowdsourcing community using the wisdom of crowd based approach to discover new business and technology ideas is laudable ("Doors more than open at Cambrian House; Cambrian House delivers "crowdsourcing technology in a box" and evolves its focus to developing its crowdsourced product portfolio," 2008). A million heads is truly better than one. Reference: Crowdsourcing just got Simpler, Faster and Less Expensive. (2009). PR Newswire. Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/pqdweb?index=0&did=1670123411&SrchMode=1&sid=1&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1303038199&clientId=22212 Doors more than open at Cambrian House; Cambrian House delivers "crowdsourcing technology in a box" and evolves its focus to developing its crowdsourced product portfolio. (2008). PR Newswire. Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com.dbgw.lis.curtin

My topic is the collaboration practices of open source software development. OVERVIEW: Open source software has popularised the concept of free, open collaboration through the huge success of projects such as Linux, Apache, and Mozilla. This article from Wired Magazine explores how the concept of open source, propelled by the success of OSS projects, is being applied to all aspects of information compilation, from free scientific journals, to liberally-licensed gene-transfer technology, to freely-editable encyclopaedia Wikipedia. Although this article takes a somewhat liberal interpretation of 'open source', it does a good job of explaining the origins and future of the open source ethos. It also pinpoints two factors behind open source's success: the rise of the Internet, and general exasperation with stifling intellectual property laws. By concentrating on open source as "a broad body of collaborators ... whose every contribution builds on those before" (p. 1), this article successfully links the concept of open source with the broader theme of online collaboration. Open source software developments, along with other incarnations of open source such as Wikipedia, are prime examples of the power of online collaboration. Relying on the work of semi-anonymous participants and loose organisational mechanisms, open source projects create something of value without many of the restrictions of intellectual property. As exemplified in this article, all kinds of organisations can learn from the success of open source's collaborative online approach.

I wanted to comment Emily on what a fascinating example of collaboration this is and a good resource to share. The open source software movement, particularly Linux, was one of the first online examples of the gift economy at work as identified by many anthropologists. Indeed, what makes some scratch their heads when trying to get others to collaborate on projects is the eagerness of those to contribute without reward to the programming process. Much has been made of the fact that niceties are attended to in the community, such as making sure the other programmers know what you did on the code. Anthropologist Coleman (2004) commenting on Project Muse shows not only the power of collaboration practices, but also how political they can get. For example to clarify this point, Zeitlyn (2003) studied the motivations of programmers who get involved in such collaborations. Much open source work is built on an ideal and goal, it is just that the sheer size of these collaborations make them very interesting in the way they are organised and executed. I do think mass scale collaborations such as Red Hat are different to Wikipedia. To me Wikipedia is somewhat anarchistic. There are rules but there is no actual valued goal; not everyone is out improve Wikipedia, whereas Linux has a greater degree of concern for the end goal, which is often being the alternative to Windows. I enjoyed reading all your postings on this issue and it seems that both Zeitlyn and Hertel et al did a lot of work to try to understand open source software and collaboration practices. References Coleman, G. (2004). The Political Agnosticism of Free and Open Source Software and the Inadvertent Politics of Contrast. Anthropological Quarterly, 77(3), 507-519. Zeitlyn, D. (2003). Gift economies in the development of open source software: Anthropological reflections. Research Policy, 32(7), 1287-1291.

Kumar's work has a reasonable amount to offer in terms of a resource; his research gives more clues to the perceived effectiveness of Google Docs users have towards it as a collaborative tool. He has chosen to use the effective research method focus groups with semi-structured questions. Perhaps the useful part of investigating Google Docs as a collaborative tool is how he selected students at the university site who were in many disciplines. Thus he was able to elicit some good insights into why Google Docs is so praised as a collaborative educational tool. One finding was that students preferred Google Docs as a time saving tool where no formal meetings took place. Although the students were on campus, it was surprising that they felt they would rather use Google Docs then all meet to work on a project. The other finding was that the acceptance of this Web 2.0 collaborative technology was greater amongst students that had previous experience with Google Docs or other similar software. Another major advantage found by Kumar (2009) was that overall using such collaborative tools increased interest in the subject matter of their particular discipline. The concept that new technologies add value to existing practice was also interesting. Although Kumar was not clear on this concept, what students indicated this was the case, such a statement suggests that using Google Docs is linked to increased interest in a subject and in turn a desire to succeed. The weakness of this resource is Kumar is not clear of this link; however, as an article to show that Google Docs is of value equating collaboration tools with increased productivity shows how potentially valuable using them can be.

Yes Michael - I agree - things are constantly changing and evolving on the Internet and as you say if Kumar did the study again it would be a different outcome. Cheers, Kaye

This paper articulates through research and data analysis from although relatively small focus group the effectiveness of using new technologies 2.0 to enhance learning of students from different background in their respective disciplines. This is as same topic as one of my discussions with article Art Education, Collaboration and the Internet. It talks about internet technology integrates into contemporary education. New generation communicates and shares information differently in current technological society. Computer literate generation are different from earlier generations who rely mainly on books and printed materials. Collaborative online activity as an educational endeavor is involving people from different areas to work together.(Harris, 1999). Internet is also being used in region of high education that adopts Web2.0 to help students learning for their self-study and group projects and leverage strategies. (Kumar, n.d). Not only for undergraduate students, but also those students from high schools and colleges, all gained the benefits of new technologies across disciplines in order to achieving their teaching and learning purposes of education. For high education, I completely agree with that Google Documents is very popular among the students for collaborative projects or assignments, because I often use Google document for my topic research and reference as well. I also believe that the internet generation's familiarity with new media undoubtedly will make this way easier for teachers to craft effective learning experiences and to use such tools to engage students. Reference: Harris, J. (1999). First steps in telecollaboration. Learning and leading with technology. 27(3),54-57. Roland, A. (2003). Art Education, Collaboration and the Internet. Retrieved from http://www.artjunction.org/articles/arted_collab_internet.pdf Kumar, S. (n.d). Undergraduate Perceptions of the Usefulness of Web 2.0 in Higher Education: Survey Development. Re

Augar, Raitman and Zhou discuss the benefits of using wikis and online collaboration in teaching and learning. In this article, the authors describe what a wiki is, and how it is used. Originating from the Hawaiian word for quick, (Augar, Raitman & Zhou, 2004, p. 95.) wikis are fully editable websites where content can be edited and added by users. This can also be referred to as "open editing" (Leuf and Cunningham, 2001.) and is a great tool for online collaboration. Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia of information is a popular example of a wiki. It is possible for users to edit and add to the content of Wikipedia allowing knowledge and content to come from many sources. Augar, Raitman and Zhou provide a comparison of a few different wikis and their functionality, including the ability to upload images (not all wikis support this) and their method of tracking users and their contributions to the wiki. This particular function is useful to guage participation of students in an educational sense. As Augar, Raitman and Zhou have concluded through a survey of university students at Deakin, for one particular class, 50% of students were not satisfied with the completely online learning experience (2004, p.98) and in order to foster a more positive learning environment with a higher level of satisfaction for students, an ice breaker acitivity has been employed using an onine wiki to improve participation and collaboration. The ice breaker activity took place over two weeks and required students to answer a series of questions designed to help them get to know their fellow students on a more personal level and to introduce them to how to use the wiki properly. Augar, Raitman and Zhou claim the ice breaker activity was successful is accomplishing this. References: Augar, N., Raitman, R. & Zhou, W. (2004). Teaching and learning online with wikis. In R. Atkinson, C. McBeath, D. Jonas-Dwyer & R. Phillips (Eds), Beyond the comf

Wikis is a truly tools for online collaboration, whereas we as users would be able to visit the page we looking for, able to read it, re-organize and even update the structure or content inside, which is in other words, we would be able to collaborate each other in terms of creating one documents with contributing our thought and list out information inside. This article is one from a good example, it's really focus on how wikis can be use in terms of facilitating online education, the article itself I found it as a credible resource which is based on report from School of Information Technology, It is useful and really explaining on how wikis can be use as online education tools. By looking at the value for the project, we can use wikis as one of the online collaboration tools whenever we need to sharing contents as well as adjusting the content, hence we would be able to contribute our part equally and accessible at all times in any occasion. By relating this article with my article - which is talk about the use and features of social bookmarking site (delicious), wikis as well provides special features in terms of facilitating online collaboration which is same as delicious sites, it is useful, support communication and collaboration among users, accessible and convenient. References: Augar, N., Raitman, R. & Zhou, W. (2004). Teaching and learning online with wikis. In R. Atkinson, C. McBeath, D. Jonas-Dwyer & R. Phillips (Eds), Beyond the comfort zone: Proceedings of the 21st ASCILIT

Augar, N., Raitman, R. & Zhou, W. (2004). Teaching and learning online with wikis. In R. Atkinson, C. McBeath, D. Jonas-Dwyer & R. Phillips (Eds), Beyond the comfort zone: Proceedings of the 21st ASCILITE Conference (pp. 95-104). Perth, 5-8 December. http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/perth04/procs/augar.html

This is an analytical article in which the writer, Elisha Peterson, discusses the use of Wiki's in her mathmatical undergraduate course. The wiki-based software, wikidot, allowed her students to post questions as well as work collaboratively on assignments. In the article the author outlines the ways in which the wiki was specifically helpful for her class. She believes that it helped to improve participation by her students. This nturn helped students to feel more at ease when they saw what other students assignments were about. She also talks about their collaborative glossary of terms, in which each student had to post two definitions. She found that because of the collaborative nature, the students posted more than the required. It was also interesting to note that students were able to comment and correct other students work, which in turn ensured they werent studying the wrong material. However it seems that what was the most important for her class was the the compatibility wikidot had with their typesetting tool LaTeX. This made typing out mathematical equations an ease instead of students having to scan written material to the site. it seems that another positive of the site is the fact that it shows the logged time of each student, and therefore shows how much time they spent online either merely reading or perhaps editing (and what they edited was shown as well). I feel the most important part of her analysis is the feedback from her students. When examining the feedback it was obvious to see that many students believed that the online collaboration helped them when it came to studying for exams. I believe this would be a great way to get help from other students; you are able to address your question to a whole group of people instead of just one person (the teacher) this way students will get answers much quicker. It seems that the only issue behind the use of a wiki is the fact that students are unable to edit a page at the same time, however it s

Online collaboration has already proved its worth in software production and in the business models of various websites and organisations (eg. Wikipedia). This article provides a good example of how online collaboration can be worthy of inclusion into course material. In this example, students in the author's maths class benefited from extending their small community into an online space because students could correct each other's glossary entries and gain guidance by looking at other students' projects online. While it would have been possible for these students to collaborate offline as well, I found it interesting that various properties of the Internet seemingly made online collaboration easier than offline collaboration. For example, students could access the Wikidot page even outside of class time. Built-in features of the wiki such as forums, syntax for 'definition lists', hyperlinks, and LaTeX further assisted communication online. Having completed units involving the use of online collaboration tools (including Wikidot), I've observed that the usefulness of online tools is inevitably limited by how many students actually participate. While Ye and Kishida (2003) postulate that a 'community of practice' motivates participants to learn through participation, I would theorise that the allocation of marks to collaborative tasks is the most effective motivation for students to participate. Indeed, the author finds that tasks to which marks are allocated had excellent participation rates, while the forum, for which use was not compulsory, was used by only a few students. References: Ye, Y. & Kishida, K. (2003). Toward an Understanding of the Motivation of Open Source Software Developers. Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Software Engineering. Accessed April 15, 2011, from http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=776867

This article discusses the author, Elishia Peterson's experience in creating and maintaining a wiki for her mathematics students to use during their semester. Peterson describes the tasks and activities she assigned the students in order to utilise the online collaboration tool that is Wikidot and was satisfied with the level of student involvement. (2009). Peterson is also forthcoming in any negatives and shortfalls she experienced during the course of the semester period, including the issue of more than one person working on the page at a time (which locks the other out and they are thus required to wait their 'turn') and that having to learn how to use the Wiki properly also took up a little extra time. Despite these minor issues, Peterson explains that the wiki created a more "streamlined student - instructor" relationship and that the communication kept the students engaged. The ability to post course material and answer questions on the wiki, along with the activities assigned to the students, created an environment where the students were able to work together. Peterson does mention that the use of the discussion board may have further enhanced the experience for her students but she found the board largely ignored perhaps as there was no grade requirement to utilise that specific tool. This reminds me of Broomhall's (2009) observation that just because a collaboration tool is available, does not mean it will be used. References: Broomhall, A (2009) No collaboration without communications Retrieved from http://www.steptwo.com.au/papers/cmb_nocollaboration/index.html Peterson, E.. (2009). Using a Wiki to Enhance Cooperative Learning in a Real Analysis Course. Primus : Problems, Resources, and Issues in Mathematics Undergraduate Studies, 19(1), 18-28. Retrieved April 17, 2011, from ProQuest Education Journals. (Document ID: 1642644011). Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/pqdweb?index=1&did=1642644011&SrchMode=1&sid=10&Fmt=4&VI

In this paper, the authors examine the use of instant messaging (IM) during face-to-face, telephone, and computer-mediated team meetings, a practice they call "invisible whispering". Dennis et al. argue that organisational decision making is dominated by teams as a team has more resources, knowledge, and political insight than any one individual working alone. Collaboration technology has come to play an important role as teams have become more geographically distributed. The authors analyse how invisible whispering alters the socio-spatial and temporal boundaries of team decision making by using Goffman's theatrical conceptualisation of social interaction. Dennis et al. suggest that invisible whispering constitutes a new communicative genre. They distinguish between six types of invisible whispering and then describe how meeting participants used these practices to restructure the socio-spatial and temporal boundaries of collaborative decision making process. Findings from the research showed that invisible whispering is likely to improve the efficiency of collaborative decision making. However, they also found mixed effects on decisions quality, satisfaction, individual comprehension, and the relationship between group members. The paper is important as it shows how instant messaging can be used within organisations a decision making tool. The authors argue that workers are able to influence front stage decision making through backstage conversations, which would have been physically impossible or socially constrained without the use of IM. This proves that instant messaging is an important collaborative tool that organisations can benefit from. References Dennis, A. R., Rennecker, J. A., Hansen, S. (2010). Invisible Whispering: Restructuring Collaborative Decision Making with Instant Messaging. Decision Sciences, 41(4), 845-886. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/doi/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2010.00290.x/pdf

By examining the practice the use of Instant Messaging (IM) for undetectable conversations during meetings, termed 'invisible whispering', this paper provides an interesting example of how communication technologies are changing collaboration. Collaboration generally relies on trust and/or effective collaborative mechanisms (Mockus et al., 2002). However, employees of the two firms studied in this paper regularly used IM to communicate secretly with each other or with others outside of the meeting. I found it interesting that the previously unacceptable practice of whispered conversations became acceptable when conducted using digital means - probably partly due to increased speed and efficiency offered by multiple synchronous conversations (p. 856). To me, the importance of such a case study is that it demonstrates how socio-spatial boundaries have been expanded. In this case, invisible whispering alters socio-spatial boundaries by bringing in the influence of outsiders, and by allowing conversations that would have occurred at another time to be brought into the context of current conversation. As such, this paper provides a good launching pad for considering the scope of online collaboration's influence. An examination of online collaboration projects such as open source software or Wikipedia reveals that, generally, online collaboration has worked to break down socio-spatial limitations by allowing the participation of more people than could ever have fit into one room, practically transcending geographical distance, and changing the nature of conversations so that they can occur either instantly or asynchronously. Reference: Mockus, A., Fielding, R., & Herbsleb, J. (2002). Two Case Studies of Open Source Software Development: Apache and Mozilla. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 11(3), p. 309-346.

While web 2.0 technologies have been around for awhile now, many organisations are still in an experimental phase. There are all too often rare wins and rare examples of it being used correctly to fulfil a strong business need or solve a business problem. This article argues that organisational collaborative tools such as social intranets etc will not be embraced or used to their full potential if employees do not already communicate with each other - i.e. have a structure, management style or physical layout that supports them to communicate. As the article states, "The existence of collaborative tools does not automatically imply that people will collaborate or collaborate effectively." (A. Broomhall, 2009) This makes sense. In a working and professional environment, most staff are more guarded in their communication (depending on the culture of the organisation of course) and less reluctant to use collaborative tools like they might as strangers on the World Wide Web. If the fundamentals of communication are working well in an organisation and already exist (ie. people have met face to face, have already established communities, have trusted relationships where they share information) they are then more likely to collaborate online. There are several intranet features which can be used to strengthen these communication paths and employee relationships: - staff directory - news channels - social news sites. It is these types of technologies (available on most intranets) which can help encourage the development of communication networks, and in turn support the use of collaborative tools. Reference: Broomhall, A (2009) No collaboration without communications Retrieved from http://www.steptwo.com.au/papers/cmb_nocollaboration/index.html

Thanks for providing this article, Kristy. I agree with Broomhall that just because collaboration tools have been put in place, it does not guarantee that these tools will be utilised or even used in the manner in which they were intended. However I also don't agree that "if people are not already communicating with each other, then there is little chance they will feel comfortable enough to share their knowledge online." (Broomhall, 2009.) I think that Net 308's Blackboard discussion forums, although not extremely lively, are an example of strangers communicating with each other and sharing knowledge. Successful forums and even groups on Flickr are comprised of those that have not met in real life nor communicated with each other prior to utilising the collaboration tool they are part of. Although I will agree that successful collaboration required the right collaboration tool and proper facilitation of such, the main factor in success or failure of online collaboration comes down to common purpose or interest. Without that fundamental element, at least at the beginning, I believe success to be far fetched and difficult to achieve. I agree that a staff directory would aid in the success of collaboration in the organisation Broomhall refers to in this article. I feel that an ice breaker activity as outlined by Augar, Raitman and Zhou (2004.) of sorts would also benefit. References: Broomhall, A (2009) No collaboration without communications Retrieved from http://www.steptwo.com.au/papers/cmb_nocollaboration/index.html Augar, N., Raitman, R. & Zhou, W. (2004). Teaching and learning online with wikis. In R. Atkinson, C. McBeath, D. Jonas-Dwyer & R. Phillips (Eds), Beyond the comfort zone: Proceedings of the 21st ASCILITE Conference (pp. 95-104). Perth, 5-8 December. http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/perth04/procs/augar.html

This is an interesting article that brings up some great points on the importance of communication regarding collaboration. I totally agree with the author, communication within an organisation is vital in order to collaborate effectively. The main problem companies experience when implementing online collaboration tools, is the objections many employees have when introduced to these new tools (Foster, 2009). Fear, uncertainty, resistance and concerns are some of the issues companies have to deal with as employees are asked to go from being a passive consumer of online information to becoming a creator of content by posting discussions, comments etc. that anyone can view. Foster (2009) suggests that businesses should spend more time thinking about the impact of these changes on their employees. In order to deal with the different issues employees may have, Foster suggests organisational change management. Like Broomhall, Foster (2009) highlights communication as the common element whether the change is coming from the top of the organization or from the bottom. The article is a useful resource for this project as it focuses on the importance of communication when organisations are implementing collaborative tools. Broomhall (2009) argues that employees need information about internal changes and external influences which may impact their daily work. As Broomhall points out, the existence of collaborative tools does not automatically imply that people will collaborate. References Broomhall, A. (2009). No Collaboration without Communications. Retrieved from http://www.steptwo.com.au/papers/cmb_nocollaboration/index.html Foster, D. (2009). Collaboration Technology and Organisational Change. Retrieved from http://gigaom.com/collaboration/collaboration-technologies-and-organizational-change/