Wiki's and Open Source: Collaborative or Cooperative?

19 Replies

This is a follow up to my previous post Community Management as Open Source’s Core Competency which has become the most viewed post on this site. I’ve been meaning to follow it up for some time, sorry for the delay.

Online communities, and in particular their collaborative nature, have been generating a lot of buzz lately. But are online communities collaborative?

Overview

The more I reflect on it, the more I suspect the answer is a qualified no. While at present there is a tremendous amount of online cooperation, this is not the same as collaboration. This is not to say the cooperative capacity of online communities has not been a boon, but simply an effort to recognize and concern ourselves, with its limits.

I suspect the world’s most interesting and challenging problems cannot be solved in isolation from, or even in cooperation with ,others. Elegant and effective solutions (those most useful to users or consumers) likely benefit from, and probably require, an interplay of ideas and perspectives. Consequently, for those involved in online collaborative projects – such as Wiki’s or open source – understanding the distinction between cooperation and collaboration is critical. If online communities cannot foster collaboration then they will fall short of the hype and ambitions they have set for themselves. Conversely, communities that figure out how to enable their members to collaborate (as opposed to merely cooperate) may end up having a decisive advantage.

Defining the problem

Why distinguish between collaboration and cooperation? Because the subtle difference between these words describes a lot about where we are versus where we need to be vis-à-vis online communities. Admittedly, Websters’ defines the two words very similarly. However, I would argue that collaboration, unlike cooperation, requires the parties involved in a project jointly solve problems.

Truly collaborative processes enable differing and possibly conflicting views to merge and create something new and previously unimagined (think of Hegel’s thesis and anti-thesis coming together in a synthesis). Many online projects – offered up as collaborative – do not meet this standard. For example, some on-line projects, particularly open-source software projects, break problems down into smaller pieces which are tackled by individuals. Sub-dividing a problem and allowing a network of volunteers to opt-in and provide solutions it is a highly efficient. However, those involved in the project many never need to talk, exchange ideas or even interact. Indeed tricky problems may often end up relying on a single clever hacker, operating alone, to solve a problem. While this can be part of a cooperative effort – people with a common goal contributing labour to achieve it – I’m not sure it is collaborative. Equally, many wiki’s simply replace old information with new information, or rely on an arbiter to settle differences. This is at best cooperative, at worst competitive, but again probably not collaborative. (Side note: Please understand, I do not mean to belittle the incredible success of online communities. Indeed the achievements of open source projects and wiki’s are remarkable. However, my concern is that cooperative approaches may only be able to solve a specific, and limited, problem type. Cultivating collaborative communities may be necessary to solve larger, more complex and interesting problems.)

Why Open-Source systems tend to be cooperative and not collaborative

My guess is that unlike cooperation, online collaboration is rare. Why? Probably because online collaboration it is hard. Few people should find this surprising since face to face collaboration can itself be pretty hard. (I make a living off helping people do it better…) People approach problems with, among other things, different assumptions, stated and unstated goals, and data sets. Effective collaboration requires people to share these differences and resolve them. Anyone who has ever been to a business meeting (even among colleagues from the same company) knows that the process for achieving this is often neither self-evident nor easy. Numerous issues can sabotage collaborative efforts – including those that have nothing to do with the substance of the problem. For example, our ideas often end up being linked to our identity. Even just modifying our idea, or worse, adopting someone else wholesale, can feel like admitting someone else is smarter or better – something that may be difficult to do, especially in a voluntary community where your value and credibility is linked to your capacity to solve problems or provide ideas.

From what I can tell online projects only exasperate the challenges of face to face collaboration. Without personal relationships, trust, body language or even intonation, it is easy for communication to break down. Consequently, it is difficult for people to resolve differences, exchange ideas, or brainstorm freely. In short, it is difficult to collaborate.

Successful online projects seem to manage this by being either a) small – relying on a tight-knit community whose strong relationships enable them to collaborate; or b) large – achieving success by doing the opposite of collaboration: separating problems into discrete pieces that individuals can handle alone.

In the large group scenario, interaction may often be limited to peer review processes where criticism – not constructive problem-solving – is the dominant form of dialogue. Consequently, interactions are limited, and usually arbitrated by some central authority. This has the benefit of capping the level of conflict but the discourse among members may remain highly combative.

Such tension can be healthy: collaboration is inherently conflictual. Most ideas spring from parties sharing differing, conflicting perspectives and jointly working to develop a solution that meets both their interests. Eliminate all conflict and you eliminate the opportunity for new ideas. However, too much conflict and the opportunities for collaboration diminish. Large communities – particularly those involved in projects that have some cache – are insulated from the inevitable burnout and frustration that causes members who skin isn’t “thick enough” to drop out. Other community members jump in and fill their spot. It isn’t pretty, but it is sustainable, in a manner of words.

Some recommendations for community managers

Consequently, the goal of online communities should be to determine how to manage, not eliminate, conflict.
So far, to be collaborative – to enable people to work together and jointly solve problems – online communities appear to have two options: (please send others!)

1) Build relationships between their users – stronger relationships can (although not always) enable people to overcome breakdowns in communication. However, building relationships generally takes time and is to scale. To date, the voting system on the Omidyar network – which rewards those perceived as having ‘good’ behaviours and ideas – is the most effective I have seen to date. Although the behaviours are not defined, one can presume that those with higher ratings are likely to be more trustworthy and easier to collaborate with than those with lower ratings. However, this system does not help users develop collaborative behaviours or skills, it simply rewards those who are already perceived as being more collaborative then the mean. Consequently, users with poor collaborative skills, but possessing expertise or substantive knowledge essential to the success of a project, may struggle to contribute. Even more troubling, the vast majority of your users could be inept at collaborating, and this system will do nothing to raise the bar or improve the community. It will only highlight and identify who is least inept.

2) Develop online communities with built in methodologies and processes that encourage or even compel users to jointly solve problems. Here one can imagine an online community that forces users to work through Chris Argyris’ ladder of inference. While likely more difficult to design, such a system could compel users to be collaborative (possibly even regardless of their intentions).

A lot of the theory around collaborative decision-making is explored in greater detail in negotiation theory. This post is part of my continuing effort to flesh out how (and even if) negotiation theory can be applied to online collaborative networks… I promise more thoughts in the future – in the meantime please send or post yours!

One closing note – if there is a compelling link between negotiation theory and collaborative online networks then it would suggest a new interesting area for inter-disciplinary studies. For example, Stanford has the Centre for Internet and Society and the Gould Negotiation and Mediation Program. It would be interesting to know if these two centres believe they share this area of mutual interest. Maybe I’ll work up the courage to email Lawrence Lessig and ask…

Review of Paul Graham's Hackers & Painters

2 Replies

You can also read this review here.

In the “Note to Readers” section at the start of Hackers and Painters: Big Ideas from the Computer Age Paul Graham points out that the book’s chapters stand alone and can be read in any order or skipped altogether. While true, it also is misleading. While each chapter may stand on its own the book does possess a single theme. Hackers and Painters is about creativity. It’s about our individual capacity to be creative, a society’s capacity to let us be creative, and the degree to which we allow our tools to limit our creativity. Graham is concerned about these questions in relation to software programmers (whom he believes should think like painters – hence the title) but the ideas are pertinent to any profession that requires creativity.
For those unfamiliar with the author, Paul Graham is the geek’s geek. In 1995 he and Robert Morris developed the first web-based application, ViaWeb, which was acquired by Yahoo in 1998. For those less technically inclined, web-based applications are the programs we use over the internet and that don’t reside on your computer (while common place today this was ground breaking stuff back in 1995…). To put it bluntly Graham understands technology and its implications. Sadly, I suspect few people outside of the technology world will read his book. For Graham, particularly in the first half of this book, can write about technology the way few can: in English. Moreover, he’s enjoyable to read because he’s blunt, funny and, by necessity, contrarian. Why contrarian? Because Graham is all about beating the average. And to avoid being average you have to be creative, and to be creative you’ve got to… break rules.

That’s right, the enemy of creativity are rules. Indeed, Paul defines a hacker as a rule-breaker: “(To hack) can be either a compliment or an insult. It’s called a hack when you do something in an ugly way. But when you do something so clever that you somehow beat the system, that’s also called a hack… Believe it or not the two senses of ‘hack’ are connected. Ugly and imaginative solutions have something in common: they both break rules. And there is a gradual continuum between rule breaking that’s merely ugly (using duct tape to attach something to your bike) and rule breaking that is brilliantly imaginative (discarding Euclidean geometry).” If this quote gets your juices flowing then this book is for you. I was intuitively comfortable with this idea because I see it in my own world. A good negotiator operates in a similar way. He or she sees the written and unwritten rules behind an impasse and finds a clever ways to ‘hack’ them – to generate a clever solution the parties can agree to.

If Hackers and Painters is about maximizing creativity, and if the enemy of creativity are rules then, as James Burke would say “there is only one place to go.” Get rid of the rules (or at least learn how to ignore them). Consequently, the subtext running through this book is a libertarian plea for individuals to choose how and if they will limit their creativity. But there is a tension in all this. As Paul notes in Chapter 7 (Mind the Gap) a society with too many rules stifles creativity. But a society without rules can extinguish it altogether. So where is the balance? It is an issue I wish Graham would explore further. Also, readers faint of heart should be warned, Graham likes to make bold (and at times unsubstantiated) claims. My favorite is : “… most physicists could, if necessary, make it through a PhD program in French literature, but few professors of French literature could make it through a PhD program in physics.” While I suspect a lot of people might agree with this statement, those that disagree with it would vehemently disagree with it. It certainly is a little outlandish. Finally, the last few chapters dive fairly heavily into discussions regarding programing language… a debate that has broader, interesting implications, but which might cause many readers to stray. But these are small quibbles with what is otherwise an interesting and provoking read.

Because this book is so different then what my friends would normally read, I’ve decided to throw in two fun quotes and passages, in an effort to tempt you into checking it out:

“One often hears a policy criticized on the grounds that it would increase the income gap between rich and poor. As if it were an axiom that this would be bad… I’d like to propose an alternative idea: that in a modern society, increasing variation in income is a sign of health. Technology seems to increase the variation in productivity at faster than linear rates. If we don’t see corresponding variation in income, there are three possible explanations: (a) that technical innovation has stopped, (b) that the people who would create the most wealth aren’t doing it, or (c) they aren’t getting paid for it.”

“The best writing is rewriting,” wrote E. B. White. Every good writer knows this, and it’s true for software too. The most important part of design is redesign. To write good software you must simultaneously keep two opposing ideas in your head. You need the young hacker’s naïve faith in his abilities, and at the same time the veteran’s scepticism. You have to be able to think how hard can it be? With one half of your brain while thinking it will never work with the other. The trick is to realize that there’s no real contradiction here. You want to be optimistic and sceptical about two different things. You have to be optimistic about the possibility of solving the problem, but sceptical about the value of whatever solution you’ve got so far.”

[tags] Paul Graham, Hackers & Painters, book review, creativity[/tags]

Hanging with Snoop Dog and Ice Cube in Ottawa

9 Replies

I was in Ottawa this weekend with Robin Anawak to present to the Millennium Scholarship Foundation’s laureates on the challenges faced by the Inuit in Nunavut. The laureates are smart and engaging so these conferences are always interesting and fun. There were numerous highlights, including a keynote by Tzeporah Berman, who charted her path from Carmanah Valley activist to founder of ForestEthics, a non-profit organization that seeks to improve industry practices by leveraging market forces.

Hilariously and unexpectedly though, was that I ended up sharing a hotel with Snoop Dog and Ice Cube who were in Ottawa for a concert (while I’m admittedly not an avid rap fan, I thought Barbershop was one of the funniest movies of 2002). The entourage of both stars were unbelievable polite and friendly. Indeed, it was great to see gangsta rappers in camouflage jackets and small town visitors in cardigans fall over themselves while trying to let the other into the elevator first.

The highlight moment though was eating breakfast at the table next to Snoop Dog’s uncle who regaled the waiter and I with stories about Snoop’s youth. Best of all was hearing how he used to change Snoop and the gang’s diapers. Somehow the world feels simpler and better knowing that even the Snoop Dog once had his diapers changed…

[tags]Snoop Dog, Junebug, Ottawa, Millennium Scholarship Foundation[/tags]

Understanding Ignatieff – The Intellectual Foundations of a Liberal Interventionist

Leave a reply

For those interested in Liberal Interventionists and foreign policy I just finished reading a piece by one of the sharpest minds I know, my friend Mike Morgan. Entitled, Michael Ignatieff: Idealism and the Challenge of the “Lesser Evil” and published in the Canadian Institute of International Affairs‘ “International Journal” it is a must read for anyone interested in understanding the intellectual origins of Ignatieff’s liberal interventionist thinking. Indeed, this paper is so good it was awarded the Gelber Prize, given to the best article by a junior scholar in the International Journal.

For another interesting piece, Mike also had published this op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. It explains the importance and power of human rights by looking at the role played by the Helsinki Final Act in ending the cold war. It is another great read and is even more closely tied to his academic research…

A quick thank you to the CIIA (which was also very engaged and supportive when Canada25 released From Middle to Model Power) for letting me post Michael’s article on my webpage.

[tags]Ignatieff, Helsinki Final Act, CIIA, Gelber Prize, International Journal, International Relations[/tags]

The Trouble with Citizens' Assemblies

12 Replies

My friend Peter MacLeod published this web-exclusive op-ed in today’s Globe and Mail where he complained about the critics’ harsh treatment of Citizens’ Assemblies. Peter (and I) may not like the language used by some of its critics but he still has to explain why citizens’ assemblies are an appropriate approach to decision making, something I’m not sure his op-ed accomplishes.

What is that famous Churchill quote? “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.” Let’s be clear, citizens’ assemblies, despite their non-binding nature, are a form of governance. Moreover, despite what their champions claim, they are not democratic. Randomly selecting citizens cannot ensure a province or country’s citizens’ diverse interests and concerns are effectively represented. We use democracy to make decisions because we believe it is the best process by which conflicting interests can be debated and citizens’ issues can be engaged. Is it perfect? Hardly. But citizens’ assemblies are less so.

To see their possible shortcomings one need only look at the BC citizens’ assembly. As Andrew Potter notes in This Magazine “The Assembly’s director of research (i.e. the fellow in charge of bringing in the experts) is Ken Carty, former chair of the UBC poli sci department. According to a colleague of mine who worked in the department under Carty, decisions at faculty meetings were always entertaining, because of the mechanism Carty used to take decisions. What mechanism was that? STV voting. Coincidence?” Moreover, a scan of Carty’s publications shows that his initial writing focused on politics in Ireland: the only other country in the world to use the system like BC STV. Does this mean Carty unduly influenced the assembly? I don’t know. But this, a problematic process, is exactly the type of issue an opposition party would bring to the publics’ attention in a public debate on a policy initiative – and yet where is the role of opposition in a citizens’ assembly?

If a community felt it couldn’t trust its politician on a given issue – such as electoral reform – why not call a commission? Although less sexy, Canada’s history is filled with notable and effective commissions that have laid the groundwork for some of the country’s most significant reforms and policy decisions. These include: public healthcare, bilingualism, and free trade. Because commissions bring together experts with diverse opinions and engage in public consultations they can accomplish many of the goals of citizen assemblies while simultaneously ensuring that numerous informed opinions are represented in the discussion. Can anyone name a process where we purposefully select non-experts to make a decision? When I get on a plane I don’t believe I will be best served if the pilot and crew are randomly selected from the passenger manifest! I’d definitely prefer an expert pilot and crew to manage the flight. The passengers may tell them where they’d like to go and offer some other suggestions, but I think we’d probably all feel safer knowing there was an expert behind the wheel. Moreover, as life and death flying a plane may be, I’m fairly certain decisions about our country are actually still more important.

My friends know I’m a fan of open-source public policy, mostly because I believe it will allow citizens, in a sophisticated and cumulative manner, to shape how our country should operate. However, there is nothing about open source public policy that is democratic – a constraint we must recognize and live by. The problem with citizen assemblies is its champions don’t believe they are bound by such constraints. A citizen assembly’s product is usually pre-sold as democratic and legitimate. Maybe one day the process will be refined in such a way that this will be true, but for now, such a description is misleading, and dangerously so, as it popularizes these assemblies’ recommendations on a false foundation.

[tags]Citizens’ Assemblies, electoral reform, Canadian politics, BC Citizens’ Assembly, Ken Carty[/tags]

Job Opportunity for Canada-US buffs

2 Replies

Just a quick note for friends interested in Canada-US relations. The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington DC is looking to hire a Program Associate for its Canada Institute. You can read more about the opportunity here. I’m a big fan of David Biette, the institute’s Director. He’s thoughtful, friendly and always willing to engage young thinkers with new ideas. The Deadline is January 31st. Thank you Alison L. for the heads up!

Speaking of the Woodrow Wilson Canada Institute, I’m laying over an extra night in Ottawa next week so I can attend their panel on Canada-US Intelligence Sharing in light of Judge O’Connor’s “Report of the Events Relating to Maher Arar.” The panel should very much be worth taking in, especially given US Senator Leahy’s growing interest in the case.

wireless number portability

1 Reply

So I may have simply been out of the loop but… did anybody else see this CRTC statement announcing that, as of March 14th 2007, wireless phone numbers will be portable? This means that when you switch from Bell to Rogers or Telus (or vice-versa) you can take your current phone number with you. Great news! For those thinking about renewing your contract you may want to wait two months, that way if you change service providers you won’t have to deal with the hassle of informing everyone about your new number.

Maybe I’ve been in a bubble, but I’m not sure word of this has gotten out. With this issue now out of the way what the teleco industry really needs to heat up is for skype to offer its SkypeIn service in Canada. Sadly, that ball is in Skype’s court and there is no sign of any movement.

PS – Thank you Sahar for the link

Two steps (or should I say decades?) back on homelessness

Leave a reply

(Small note: For those less interested in Vancouver and looking for a national story check out my man Taylor’s take on Simpson’s Globe and Mail piece and why Iggy’s policy development process lead to such a strong outcome.)

As for me, I’m feeling frustrated about Mayor Sam Suillivan’s poll on Vancouverites municipal priorities. For anyone who hasn’t visited Vancouver in the last year there is no doubt that homelessness is the number one issue – an observation confirmed by the city’s residents. No big surprise, given the rising cost of housing and a sharply declining number of available low-cost rooms in single-room occupancy (SRO) hotels (those most affordable to low-income residents).

The challenge for the mayor (beyond actually solving the problem) is that it is hard to take his concern seriously. We need only recall that, after taking office, his second act was to reduce the amount of social housing that would be part of the Olympic village development. Moreover, during the debate over Project Civil City he voted down a proposed amendment to include the Minister for Housing on the Mayor’s Civil City Leadership Council. If you were concerned about homelessness and were putting together a team to tackle it, it would seem sensible that you’d want to pull together the relevant stakeholders – especially those with access to resources beyond the meager ones available to the city.

Vancouver is now preparing for the 2010 Winter Olympics without an effective homelessness strategy. Sadly, precedent does not look good. In the lead up to the 1986 World Exposition Vancouver managed a similar problem by simply expelling the homeless from the relevant areas. While the city was ‘clean’ for Expo ’86 the long term consequence was the radicalization of civic politics and damaged relations between city hall and the city’s most at-risk citizens. Combine this municipal approach with a Federal Government intent on treating drug addiction and homelessness as a legal and not a social challenge and you have the recipe for disaster. Be prepared for a new effort to ‘sanitize’ Vancouver – an effort that will almost certainly fray or destroy the social and support networks that help at risk communities and push the problem out to the surrounding communities of the GVRD.

[tags]Vancouver, Vancouver politics, Sam Suillivan, homelessness, social housing, 2010 Olympics[/tags]

shhhh, Did the Fraser Institute Just Say Something Interesting?

2 Replies

The sad fact about most think tanks in Canada is that they are generally quite boring. The most egregious example of this phenomenon is the Fraser Institute. I’ll admit that I rarely read Fraser Institute reports simply because I’ve found I don’t have to… I already know that they are going to say before I pick them up. No matter what the problem, a downside-free, unregulated, free-market option will always be the perfect solution. However, the real problem isn’t that I know what their reports say before I read them, it’s that the Fraser Institute policy wonks knew what it was going to say before they researched it.

That said, it is important to keep one’s eye out for data that contradicts established conclusions (something the Fraser Institute is good at avoiding). So, I was initially curious when I read this piece in the Vancouver Sun on Wednesday the 10th discussing how a Fraser Institute report, Tax Efficiency: Not All Taxes are Created Equal, argues that while income taxes should be lowered, the forgone revenue should be captured by raising the GST to 8 or 9%.

This is indeed a suggestion worth exploring. Raising the GST would encourage saving and investment and dampen consumption (particularly of imported consumer goods that negatively impact our trade surplus). Indeed as long as a basket of core goods – food, rent, educational materials, healthcare and other essential goods and services – remain tax exempt the GST can serve as quite a progressive tax lever. It could become even more progressive if the new taxes were used to elevate the basic exemption – providing tax relief to everyone, but most of all to those who earn the least. These latter suggestions are, of course, not in the Fraser Institute report and humble additions of my own. Hey, I said they got something right – not everything!

Actually, this suggestion is so sensible, it is precisely the same argument the Liberals (quietly) used during the last election to highlight why the Conservative party was foolish to advocate cutting the GST. (BTW: Am I frightened that the Liberals and the Fraser Institute are on the same page, even on only half an issue? Absolutely.)

For those too bored, or too tired, of predictable reports from Canada’s ideological think tanks, the Fraser Institutes’s tax report will only confirm your worst fears. To be clear, their one interesting recommendation is essentially a happy accident of analysis. Moreover, the usual Fraser Institute shenanigans are in play. For example, in assessing Canada’s tax structure the authors use the OECD countries as a benchmark. For those who think that sounds like a reasonable peer group you would be correct, except that in 1990’s the OECD added Poland, the Czech Republic, the Slovak Republic, and Hungary. Guess which group of countries doesn’t like to levy an income tax on its citizens, in large part because they don’t have an income to tax? Better yet, when calculating the OECD average the authors elected to not weight the countries income tax rates. So the income tax rates of Canada (35.1) or the United States (34.7) have the same impact on the OECD average as, oh, let’s say, the Czech (12.7) or Slovak (9.3) Republics. No big deal – IF we put aside the fact that the Czech Republic has a population 1/30th that of the US and 1/3rd that of Canada, that its real GDP is .9% that of the US and 10% of Canada’s and that its economy is, shall we say, structured somewhat differently than our own. But I’m sure that the Fraser Institute chose this methodology for some sound reason and not because it makes the OECD average income tax appear lower so they can argue Canada’s tax burden is comparatively high.

Ah, the Fraser Institute: where research conforms to conclusions.

[tags]Fraser Institute, canadian politics, think tanks, public policy[/tags]