1: EMBRACE THE SWARM

At present, there is far more to be gained...

...by pushing the boundaries of what can be done by the bottom than by focusing on what can be done at the top.

When it comes to control, there is plenty of room at the bottom. What we are discovering is that peer-based networks with millions of parts, minimal oversight, and maximum connection among them can do far more than anyone ever expected. We don't yet know what the limits of decentralization are.

2009/02/27 4 Comments 0 Links

 

4 Comments

#1 | Mon, 03-02-09 10:56 | tinwheeler

We don't yet know what the limits of decentralization are. We are starting to see those effects in our government today. One piece of common sense we do know is that you can always climb up from the bottom but only fall from the top.

 
#2 | Tue, 03-03-09 11:08 | James Clar


I think back in 1998 the power of decentralization seemed pretty limitless, especially with the internet creating a new 'global community'. However, we are now learning there are limits to decentralization. Most people aren't researchers or specialists in certain topics, but when you give everyone the same leverage as those who do focus on certain topics, then the noise of the crowd drowns out the specialized few.

Another example might be social news aggregators such as Digg or even Reddit. While they may have provided specialized and interesting articles when their numbers were lower, as soon as they became popular to the masses the quality of items reaching top level dramatically lowered.

 
#3 | Wed, 03-04-09 10:20 | mark

3 acres and a cow, an embrace of the limitations of local place, decentralized productivity and the networking capacity of the internet. All that's needed is benevolent and wise guidance from Leader(the sticking point)...such as Abraham Lincoln said, "The greatest fine art of the future will be the making of a comfortable living from a small piece of land."

 
#4 | Sat, 03-14-09 06:09 | Gumnos

One limit of decentralization is single-source authority. Within the context, this loss may prove beneficial or detrimental.

Most of the time, good design can ameliorate the inexactitude of decentralization -- think Google's search results (aggregated across thousands of decentralized servers: your results might vary slightly depending on which subset of servers responded, but the top results are usually right), Digg/Reddit, grass-roots movements, ant/bee colonies, or autonomous terrorist cells (viewed internally as a good, but externally as bad, but certainly decentralized for their benefit).

However, when control *does* matter, centralization can provide wins: when you require accurate aggregate statistics, not just "close" answers; when conflicts arise you need an authoritative arbiter.

Neither has a 100% win over the other, but both offer situational benefits.

-gumnos

 

Leave a comment

Your Name:









Thanks for your comment. The words in the CAPTCHA box come from old book texts that are being scanned and stored by the Internet Archive. By entering the words in the box, you prove you are not a bot and also you help proofread the books. If the sample you see is too hard to read, simply click the recycle button to get another two. Don't forget to put a space between the words.


 

Archives - This site operates under a Creative Commons License.

This is a blog version of a book of mine first published in 1998. I am re-issuing it (two posts per week) unaltered on its 10th anniversary. Comments welcomed. More details here.
-- KK