Group items tagged

Lieber" wäre Stocker eine Revolution, bei der die Bürgerrechte aus dem realen Leben auf die virtuelle Welt übertragen werden. Denkbar sei das durch ein Übernahme gewisser Infrastrukturen in den öffentlichen Bereich, was einen ungehinderten, freien Meinungsaustausch sicherstellen würde, so Stocker. Genauso wie der Staat für Parkanlagen und Räume sorge, an denen Menschen unbeschränkt kommunizieren könnten, sollte er das auch im Internet ermöglichen.

Most of what is scary about the government having power is the lack of transparency. The startup nation would have full transparency. Any citizen could log on to his computer and see what court orders had been issued for what videos and why.

Arguably, China accidentally performed a variant of this experiment with Hong Kong. Oversimplifying the history, Hong Kong was part of China and leased to the United Kingdom for 99 years, like a startup country within a country.

Cloud computing will go big. While many agencies will just use the technologies internally for now in order to have public options later, there is tremendous interest in the cloud

Government portals (rightly) continue to incorporate social media, but deep engagement will be elusive for now. I've seen many overhauls of government portals this year, including Utah.gov and the Department of Defense, prominently incorporate social media right on their home pages. To be clear, these are major advances for the government to make on the internal/external boundary and I encourage them.

But not as impressive as the $210 million he'd raised by then from bundlers and large donors

“Social networks are particularly effective at increasing motivation,”

But that’s not true. Social networks are effective at increasing participation—by lessening the level of motivation that participation requires

social media are not about this kind of hierarchical organization. Facebook and the like are tools for building networks, which are the opposite, in structure and character, of hierarchies. Unlike hierarchies, with their rules and procedures, networks aren’t controlled by a single central authority. Decisions are made through consensus, and the ties that bind people to the group are loose.

There are many things, though, that networks don’t do well. Car companies sensibly use a network to organize their hundreds of suppliers, but not to design their cars.

The drawbacks of networks scarcely matter if the network isn’t interested in systemic change—if it just wants to frighten or humiliate or make a splash—or if it doesn’t need to think strategically. But if you’re taking on a powerful and organized establishment you have to be a hierarchy.

it is simply a form of organizing which favors the weak-tie connections that give us access to information over the strong-tie connections that help us persevere in the face of danger. It shifts our energies from organizations that promote strategic and disciplined activity and toward those which promote resilience and adaptability

Twitter's been focused on openness, and his response was that it's a "survival strategy." New ideas, new concepts, new applications — all flow to open organizations. That's a great way to express the point that for next-gen organizations, openness is now table stakes: fail at it, and you're not even in the game.

That's what 21st century organizations look like: networks, not pyramids.

Doors versus windows

That's pretty radical. Wall St, Detroit, Big Food, Big Software and HMOs are just a few for whom win/wins have mattered little, if at all. It's a simple, powerful way to frame next-gen strategy in a nutshell.

, Ev said: better connections, better information — better choices

Just as the fundamental challenge of the 21st century is making authentically, meaningfully better stuff, for the 21st century media it's communicating in better ways — not simply bombarding the reader-"consumer" with more, bigger, louder ads.

Erasing information asymmetries is where the future of advertising lies. But you can't get there unless you can build a 21st century business first.

Nur fünf Teilnehmer der Studie erzielen mit ihren eigenen Schätzungen ein besseres Ergebnis. Der Durchschnitt hat die Einzelnen besiegt!

Andere Forscher wiederholen das Experiment. Sie variieren den Aufbau, lassen anstelle von Gewicht die Menge von Murmeln in einem Glas schätzen oder die Anzahl von Schrotkörnchen, die zu einem kleinen Häuflein aufgeschüttet worden sind

Sunstein zitiert, ist ein Experiment, das 2005 in Colorado durchgeführt wurde. Sechzig amerikanische Bürger wurden zusammengebracht und in zehn Gruppen zu jeweils fünf bis sieben Leuten eingeteilt. Jede Gruppe wurde aufgefordert, über aktuelle politische Kontroversen zu diskutieren: Homo-Ehe, Gleichstellungspolitik, Kyoto-Protokoll. Die Teilnehmer des Experimentes waren so ausgesucht worden, dass die Gruppen zu Teilen aus Liberalen, also Linken bestand, und zu Teilen aus Konservativen. Fünf Gruppen waren von den Liberalen dominiert, fünf von den Konservativen. Jeweils vor und nach der Diskussion gaben die Teilnehmer ihre Meinungen einzeln und anonym zu Protokoll.

Denn eine Grundvoraussetzung für die beschriebenen Techniken des "information aggregeting" ist, dass die einzelnen Teilnehmer, Spieler oder Wähler hinreichend voneinander isoliert sind und sich in ihrer Meinungsbildung nicht, wie im Colorado-Experiment, zu stark gegenseitig beeinflussen.