The document discusses key questions around human nature and cooperation. It summarizes experiments that show Wikipedia entries can be as accurate as Britannica entries and errors are typically corrected within hours or days. It also discusses how communities like Wikipedia are able to sustain open collaboration on shared resources through self-correction, history tracking, and a publish-then-filter model where the minority of active contributors improve content for the majority of less active readers and editors.

1. CCKorea 컨퍼런스 < 공유본색 >
2013.10.31. D-camp
이진순
1

2. Key Questions
1. 인간은 사적 이익을 추구하는 존재인가 ?
2. 인간은 공유를 통해 무엇을 얻기를 원하
나?
3. 공유된 자원이 계속 증식해 나가는 비결
은 무엇인가 ?
4. 공유는 세상을 어떻게 바꾸나 ?
2

3. Howard Rheingold
Author of “Smart Mobs” (2002)
Spoke of “New Ways of Collaboration”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5s3Z0iesRM
3

4. 두 개의 시각
인간은 근본적으로 사적 이익을 추구하는 이기적 존
재인가 ?
그렇다면 공유와 협력은 어떻게 가능한가 ?
공유지의 비극 (Tragedy of the Commons)
We are all in the Same Boat
4

5. Tragedy of the Commons
The tragedy of the
commons:
- Coined by Garrett Hardin
in 1968
- Individuals seek to
maximize their own selfinterest and ultimately
deplete shared limited
resources.
- “Everybody’s property is
nobody’s property.”
5

6. Contrasting Research
Elinor Ostrom (1990), a
political scientist, asked
the question: is it really
true that humans will
always despoil
commons?
수천건의 공유사례들 검
토 . ( 수자원 , 임산자원
, 어장 etc.)
humans destroyed the
commons that they
depended on. But she
also found many
instances in which
people escaped the
prisoner's dilemma.
6

7. Prisoner's Dilemma
 A game invented at Princeton's Institute of Advanced Science in the
1950's.
 Basic scenario:
- Two people who committed a crime together are arrested and put
in separate rooms, not able to communicate with each other.
- They are both given two options, sell out your partner and get a
reward or keep quiet and get arrested.
- If one testifies against the other and the other remains silent, the
betrayer goes free and the silent accomplice receives the full 5-year
sentence. If both remain silent (cooperate), both prisoners are
sentenced to only six months in jail for a minor charge.
 What will happen?
7

8. 현실 속의 죄수의 딜렘마는 ?
An Iterated prisoner's dilemma
The game is played repeatedly. Thus each player has
an opportunity to punish the other player for previous
non-cooperative play. What will happen?
Tit-for-Tat (equivalent retaliation):
- Robert Axelrod (1984) examined in “The Evolution of
Cooperation” whether cooperation can evolve among
individuals who pursue their own self-interest.
- An agent responds to an opponent’s previous action. If
the opponent previously was cooperative, the agent is
cooperative. If not, the agent is not.
- People learn solidarity and can then break out of the
vicious circle.
8

9. Tit-for-Tat 전략
4 가지 행동양식
1. 일당 상대방을 믿고 협조하라 ( 초기 신뢰 )
2. 상대방이 협조하면 계속 협조하라 ( 신뢰 유지 )
3. 만약 상대방이 배신하면 같이 배신하라 ( 응징 !)
4. 배신한 상대방이 협조하면 다시 협조하라 ( 용서 !)
9

10. 우리의 실제 현실은
죄수의 딜렘마가 가정한 상황과 다르다 .
10

11. Prisoner's Dilemma
 A game invented at Princeton's Institute of Advanced Science in the
1950's.
 Basic scenario:
- Two people who committed a crime together are arrested and put
in separate rooms, not able to communicate with each other.
- They are both given two options, sell out your partner and get a
reward or keep quiet and get arrested.
- If one testifies against the other and the other remains silent, the
betrayer goes free and the silent accomplice receives the full 5-year
sentence. If both remain silent (cooperate), both prisoners are
sentenced to only six months in jail for a minor charge.
 What will happen?
11

12. Ultimatum Game
적정한 합의의 기준
 Ultimatum Game ( 최후통첩게임 . Dictator Game):
- There are two players; they've never played the game before, they
will not play the game again, they don't know each other, and they
are, in fact, in separate rooms.
- First player is offered a hundred dollars and is asked to propose a
split: 50/50, 90/10, whatever that player wants to propose.
- The second player either accepts the split -- both players are paid
and the game is over -- or rejects the split – neither player is paid and
the game is over.
12

13. 인간의 합리성
10:90 을 받아들일것인가
?
인간의 합리성은 기계적
인 계산에 의하지 않는다 .
공정함의 기준
13

14. Communal Benefit
"We all face the Prisoner's
Dilemma whenever we
interact with people we could
take advantage of, or people
who could take advantage of
us, yet we actually manage to
trust one another often
enough to accomplish things
in groups" (Shirky, p. 191).
14

15. 공유의 기적 , Wikipedia
 Encyclopedia

-
-
News outlet
Online community
Popularity
31 million articles (3 million in English), 262 language editions
(English 52%, Spanish 19%, French 5%, Polish, German, Japanese 3%
each)
More than 330 million contributors every month
One of the top five most visited website in the world.
The English-language Wikipedia is the only noncommercial site in the
top twenty sites for the US
15

16. Introduction of Wikis
 Launched by Jimmy Wales and
Larry Sanger in 2001 by
adopting wiki software
(developed in 1995) that let any
reader add, alter or delete web
contents
 Written, reviewed, edited,
proofread by anybody
 The Wikimedia Foundation,
Inc. was launched as a nonprofit parent organization of
various free-content projects.
 Managed by the non-profit
-
-
Wikimedia Foundation
Wikipedia
Wikinews : a free news source
Wikimedia Commons : freely
usable images, videos, and sound
files
Wikibooks : a project to create
free textbooks
Wikiversity : an interactive
learning platform
Wiktionary : a multiligual
dictionary
16

17. Wikipedia is Reliable?
Professor Wikipedia
on Youtube
Criticism
“If anyone can edit
anything on the site
any time they want,
how in the world can
you trust what you
read there?”
17

18. Experiment 1
Prof. Alex Halavais (2004) at University of
Buffalo has tested Wikipedia by creating
thirteen errors on various posts on Wikipedia.
Then, he observed whether and how quickly
the errors would be fixed. What do you guess
about the result?
(1)30% were fixed within a week.
(2)45% were fixed within three days.
(3)75% were fixed within a day.
(4)100% were fixed within a few hours.
18

19. Experiment 2
In 2005, the journal “Nature” examined Wikipedia
and Britannica to compare the accuracy of entries.
Experts did a peer review of 42 science entries from
both sources. What would be the findings?
(1)Britannica is more accurate than Wikipedia
(2)Wikipedia is more accurate than Britannica
(3)There is no particular difference
19

20. Nature found that:
The Nature concluded that: "Wikipedia comes close
to Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science
entries.”
The exercise revealed numerous errors in both
encyclopaedias, but among 42 entries tested, the
difference in accuracy was not particularly great: the
average science entry in Wikipedia contained around
four inaccuracies; Britannica, about three.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/4
20

21. Experiment 3
The Denver Post (2007) graded Wikipedia by asking
five experts to review entries in their field of study.
What do you think the result would be like?
“Four out of five agreed their relevant Wikipedia
entries are accurate, informative, comprehensive and
a great resource for students.”
21

22. 브리태니커의 퇴장 ?
 Britannica ends print copies
“The Encyclopedia Britannica,
which has been in continuous
print since it was first published
in Edinburgh, Scotland in 1768,
said Tuesday it will end
publication of its printed
editions and continue with
digital versions available
online.” (March 14, 2012)
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JpQu_DTZWo&feature=player_embed
22

23. New Ways of Knowledge Production

-
Collaborative production
Open source production
Unmanaged division of labor
“Discussion” tag allows editors or contributors to carry out the negotiation
over what should appear in the entry being created

-
Self-correction
Continuing process: Every entry is provisional
“History” tag
 Publish-then-filter model
cf. Nupedia: Predecessor of Wikipedia (2000),
- Written, reviewed, and managed by experts, through peer review
processes
- From March 2000 to September 2003, 24 articles were completed and
74 were in progress
 Communal Property
- Authorship detached from ownership
- No advertising, Noncommercial purposes, Open source movement
23

24. Imbalanced Participation
 Power law
distribution
: (eg1). of 205 edits
by 129 contributors,
six accounted for a
quarter of the edits.
(eg2)
Revision history on ODU
24

25. Collaboration and Harmony
A handful of most active
contributors and the
majority of less active
contributors
Desire to make a mark
Desire to do meaningful
contribution
Desire to do a good
thing
25

26. Worse is Better?
- Richard Gabriel, a software engineer at Sun Microsystems
- “A short and uninformative article can be the anchor for the
good article that will eventually appear” (Shirky, pp. 121-122)
The earliest post about
McDonald’s
The earliest post about
Justin Timberlake
The latest post about
McDonald’s
The latest post about
Justin Timberlake
26

27. 공유자산의 지속가능한 발전
How could Wikipedia survive and develop despite risks of
vandalism?
“Wikipedia assumes that new errors will be introduced less
frequently than existing ones will be corrected. This
assumption has proven correct” (Shirky, p. 119)
27

28. 공유는 세상을 어떻게 바꾸나
새로운 집단행동의 등장
인터넷액티비즘
(Technology-enabled Collective Action)
1. Leadership/organization
2. Membership
3. Repertoires
4. Continuity
5. Major communication channels
28

29. Empowered Citizens
Movement-entrepreneurs
(MEs):
“Individuals who are motivated
by individual grievances to
undertake social movement
activity and who rely on their
own skills to conduct their
actions” (Earl & Schussman,
2003)
29

30. Decentralized Leadership:
Rhizomatic Form
(by Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari)
30

31. Parody & Culture Jamming
Playful parodying of
corporate advertisements
and logos to produce
critical messages
31

32. Subvertisement
Compound word of subversion and
advertisement
Nike “Just Do It”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=His_Xqibzug&feature=related
32

33. Global Networks of Civic Action
Simultaneous action on multiple fronts in
multiple ways (Smith, 2000).
33

35. Thomas Jefferson says,
“He who receives ideas from me,
receives instruction himself
without lessening mine; as he
who lights his taper at mine
receives light without darkening
me. That ideas should freely
spread from one to another over
the globe…”
35