In the online world,the wisdom of the crowd helps create reliable information. When we were children,we used to play a game called Truth or Lie. Each person would be allowed to say four things and pass them off as the truth. However,each person was allowed to say one thing that was not truthful and the rest of the group would try and spot the lie. We knew,intuitively,that the larger the group playing the game,the more chances there were of spotting the lie. We didnt have a theoretical framework or logical explanation for why this was,except for the adage the more the merrier. People who share my obsession with board games will also remember that if more people played games like Scotland Yard or Cluedo,it was always easier to find Mr X or figure out who had committed the murder in which room with what weapon. This particular idea gets formulated in the digital realms as wisdom of the crowd. It is a principle that suggests that knowledge produced by conversations,contestations,negotiations and consensus-building is more accurate and closer to reality than the results produced by an isolated person working on the problem. This wisdom of crowds has always been an invisible principle that creates folk wisdom,inherited knowledge,common sense understandings that help us survive and cope with our everyday life. But on the internet,this has become the way by which Web 2.0 functions. It is what makes Wikipedia a trusted authority that is not written by one solitary expert but by a larger crowd of interested stakeholders. This is the reason why offensive material on Flickr or YouTube gets flagged off even before it reaches you. When we rely on social networks like Facebook and Twitter to not only curate relevant information,but also to validate questionable information,we rely on the wisdom of the crowd. The ability of digital communities to constantly produce,even without a central censorship mechanism,information that is sensitive and rich,relies on multiple people engaging with information,sifting,correcting,and contributing to it. It is this power of the digital web,which is able to assimilate dissent and differing perspectives,that makes the information highway reliable. We recently had an interesting case that showed how information on the internet cannot be manipulated despite interventions by powerful financial and political groups. McDonalds recently started a campaign on Twitter to counter popular accusations that it is promoting unhealthy food. The campaign,which invoked farmers to talk about the produce they provide McDonalds,used the hashtag #MeetTheFarmers. As a part of the campaign,McDonalds introduced the hashtag #McDstories to tell stories of healthy,happy,sustainable food practices that they promote in their stores. It sounded like a good plan to reach its demography through Twitter,thus promoting the brand. However,things went wrong really fast because McDonalds did not take into account the way the web works. Within the first one hour of their promotional tweets,users who have had personal and political problems with McDonalds,offered their views on Twitter,far outnumbering the positive spin that was being pushed by the company. Soon,customers brought out personal stories of dissatisfaction,of horror,of the problematic politics of fast food and unhealthy life choices that are associated with it. Instead of the happy feel-good stories that McDonalds was expecting,they witnessed a fierce backlash that demonstrated once again,the ways in which the digital world operates. It goes on to show that the larger consensus and voices online will always find a way of protesting against information that might not always be true. It shows that information on the Web has a different circuit which cannot be controlled and manipulated by financial or political powers. The wisdom of the crowd ensures that information is judged,valued,promoted,and contested when it comes into the digital spaces. So the next time you are online,you know that your role is not in just consuming the information. If you find things that are not true,go ahead and correct it. If you find information that is problematic,contest and verify it. And know that while not everything we read online is going to be reliable,your own discerning practices are bolstered by a million others,who,in their engagement with the information are building a stronger,more robust information ecology online. Nishant Shah is director,research,Centre for Internet and Society
