The Hive Summary

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
The amount of time when false information gets corrected can be an issue. This is the compromise of extreme programming vs. standard 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
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