Small vs Large Groups

In the article “Committees, juries and teams: The columbia disaster and how small groups can be made to work” James Surioweicki outlines the potential problems and solutions small groups face. He brings up dilemmas such as diversity, group polarization, leadership and overall structure. After comparatively reading Marshall Poe’s “The Hive” I feel these problems are not ones small groups face, but in fact problems the small group creates. Poe’s text supports the theory that all types of groups face similar problems.

Be that as it may, using Wikipedia’s extreme programming structure he continues his argument; implying that when transferred to a large scale group all problems are hindered, if not completely eradicated. In other words, when Jimmy Wales created Wikipedia, (a website that allows multiple users to create. edit and hyperlink pages), he simultaneously set a new standard for group structure. Wales based his website off the idea of extreme programming, which pushed the public to get involved and create something revolutionary. “The premise of standard software is that you plan, and plan, and plan then you code.

In contrast, extreme programming advocates going live with the earliest possible version of new software and letting many people work simultaneously to rapidly refine it” (Poe 270) This idea single handedly, was the breakthrough point for Wikipedia. The format worked because it gave a certain “power” to the individual. The power to be part of something larger then themselves. Despite this groundbreaking feature, Wales points out that the structure of letting the community be the central power has one flaw. The amount of time when false information gets corrected can be an issue.

This is the compromise of extreme programming vs. tandard software engineering. However, “Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow; his point was simply that the speed with which a complex project is perfected is directly proportional to the number of informed people working on it” (Poe 269). As is the case with Wikipedia, having so many members in it’s arsenal the complications of false information can be limited. Alternatively, if Wales was working with a small group, this practice would not work because there wouldn’t be enough people to keep things moving. In his text, Suriowiecki shows us one critical point for the eventual success of a small group.

An important thing about these studies is that there is no point in making small groups part of leadership structures if you don’t give the group a method of aggregation opinions of it’s members” (Suriowiecki 450). To elaborate, when a major company CEO uses a small group to get advice but instead opts for his own opinion, the benefits of said group are lost. The whole point of using a small group decision engine is because statistically, it is more profound then the decision of one. Also when the members believe they’re important it creates a sense of self worth, in turn making the group work more effectively.

Evidently, importance is also a reason the large group works so well. Again, large groups give the individual a means to become something greater. Wikipedia’s members, or “Wikipedians” seem to have “no interest other than the truth in doing all of this work” (Poe 277). When stating this Poe forgot to think about member’s self interest. Members get to create and edit all pages on whim, making them the most defining factor of the structure. In return the Wikipedians get rewarded for their entries. By contributing, members feel accomplished; not only did they provide a service but get to share their knowledge with the masses.

This alone is enough to make people want to be involved in large groups. It is apparent that for wikipedia to work successfully (as it does) the basic guidelines of a small group are relevant and should be considered Another complication in small groups is the dilemma of becoming more than just a sum of its parts” (Suriowiecki 442). When a small group of diverse individuals can come together after equal deliberation it can form a group identity. Contrary to Suriowiecki’s beliefs this is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, in relation to Wikipedia, it is the “Glue that holds the pages”.

In essence Wikipedia is a group of individuals coming together to share common knowledge. Kryzystof Jasicutowics, pointed this out when he stated “On the internet contributors own their own pages, and only they can edit them. On Wikipedia, contributors own all of the pages collectively and can edit nearly every page” (Poe 276). With this is mind, a theme of members conforming to a group consensus is present. Furthermore, because members are so essential Wikipedia literally is the perfect “republic”. (ran by the people) In addition, Suriowiecki highlights that in a small group leaders would do more harm the good.

With their presence problems like group polarization and over talkativeness are more likely. This is when the group drastically moves in favor of one opinion, not allowing equal discussion or arguments. However, this is when large groups are far superior. Organizations such as Wikipedia never have to worry about group polarization. With such great numbers it is not rational to believe at one point every Wikipedian would conform to one view. There will always be people on both sides of the field striving for the correct information. On the other hand, history has shown us there can always be exceptions.

Adolf Hitler achieved a form of group polarization when he created the nazi regime. Of course this is an extreme example but it raises the question, If the large group conforms to one identity, because of it’s numbers, would it need a leader? Jimmy Wales, the owner of wikipedia would tell you “No”. After Wales and his partners deliberated over the thought they made the decision “though the division of powers between Sanger and the community remained to be workout out, an important precedent had be set: Wikipedia would have an owner, but no leader” (Poe 272).

With no leader, large groups can avoid a bias towards “central power” (poe 271) ultimately eliminating the chance or group polarization. In addition, another form of leadership was presented when Sanger said Wikipedia “would have to be guided by a board of experts, that submissions would be largely written by experts and that articles would be published only after exclusive peer review” (Poe 269). This relates to the small group example with the CEO; If Wales continued with this structure Wikipedia’s main advantage would have been negated.

The fact that Wikipedia is guided by no one, has submissions by numerous members and uses mutual peer reviews is what fuels the website to work as flawlessly as it does. Thankfully Wales opted out of the decision of a higher power because it could have eventually caused the downfall of Wikipedia. Moreover, on of the biggest problem a small group deals with is lack of diversity. Suriowiecki explains NASA’s structure of newly trained workers all come from the same background training. This leads to their minds working very similar when preforming jobs.

However, when presented to a large group this problem is easily eliminated by sheer numbers. With so many people involved, diversity is almost always going to be present. Wikipedia took this one step further in the movement towards the “Lack of biases policy” (Poe 271). With such a diverse amount of users wikipedia imposed a “NPOV, or the neutral point of view” (Poe 271). Wales, (wikipedia’s owner) implied that authors should only stick to the facts and when arguments occurred to give equal space to each side.

This version of open mindedness is another problems small groups face that is more easily avoided in the large group setting. Finally, Poe writes about Wikipedia’s issue with trolls and vandals. (Slang terms given to members that stray from or diminish the group consensus) Originally vandal’s were interpreted as major problems but after further analysis they also have certain benefits. Groups polarization is impossible when vandals and trolls will always be present. With such a diverse spread of people, it is expected to get members that purposely strike up arguments and false information just for sport.

Even if it not there main purpose they in fact fuel discussion and help create new ideas. Additionally Wales solves the negative’s of trolls and vandals with the simple idea that “given enough eyeballs, all errors are shallow” (Poe 276). “Watching members of the huge Wikipedia community usually swoop down to stop malfeasance shortly after it begins. He believes that because the common goal of useful knowledge is present, eventually all the false information gets eliminated. There are of course exceptions but even this example shows that the system is” If not perfect, at least responsive” (Poe 276).

At the same time, being able to overcome trolls and vandals is another quality that makes large groups superior to the small. For example, NASA and the Columbia disaster was undoubtedly influenced by the efforts of a “Troll”. Even if was not her intent, being a lead member in NASA, Lisa Ham effectively ruined all chances of the Columbia mission being a success. Her leadership position combined with her arrogant views is a perfect example of how one member in a small group can effect the overall outcome. While in large groups, the effects of one are severely reduced, greatly lessening the power of trolls and vandals.

In conclusion, A small group and large group are considerably alike in the problems they face. However, looking from Poe’s point of view, just by working with a large group you eliminate most, if not all of those problems. Reflecting on this, it is easy to say, large groups as a whole are superior to their opposites. As we see with Wikipedia once the large group reaches a common goal, it fuels itself into a very powerful machine. Every problem that arises can be solved with the built in structure that Wales and Sanger help create.