If the results are not correct, it is often said that the 'wisdom of the crowd' does not exist, but that does not do justice to the concept of wisdom of the crowd. If the results are unknown, no one knows what the real outcome is. Should everyone's vote carry equal weight? Was there sufficient diversity? Only under very specific circumstances can it be determined whether all the preconditions for 'wisdom of the crowd' have been met.
The results of the Swiss study make the effect of mutual influence painfully clear. This is all the more relevant now that there is more and more communication through social media. We talk to each other more and more, for example in social networks, exchange information and adjust our opinions based on that.
Furthermore, our behavior is increasingly determined by information filtered new zealand phone number list with the help of 'wisdom of the crowd', such as the highest search results on Google, the most read articles, the best rated hotels, or the most downloaded applications. With the arrival of Facebook 'like' and Google '+1' this trend is only further reinforced. We therefore form our opinion less and less independently of each other and less and less based on our own local knowledge.
In the future, social filters will become increasingly important to filter the multitude of information and thus select the most relevant for each individual. However, the danger lies in the fact that we develop a further collective blindness, certainly if popularity gains the upper hand. We will have to remain constantly aware of this and seek a balance between relevance (by filtering information) and diversity.