On this platform, everyone contributes to a library of content that can be used by anyone to do anything, the payoff for sharing your content is that everyone else has access to yours. I think Larry Lessig would agree.

Unfortunately, the interface for accomplishing such a level of collaboration doesn’t yet exist, but that doesn’t mean it hasn’t already started happening. Introducing thru-you.com — a site run by YouTuber ‘Kutiman’ that remixes unrelated existing user-submitted YouTube musical content into new pieces; making songs played by ‘bands’ whose members have never met one another. The result is pretty cool to behold:

Under the editorial control of Kutiman, a massive pool of unrelated source material has been crafted together into an original piece. Conceptually, this is reminiscent of the sampling done in hip-hop, but from a much larger, more diverse pool.

Generating these movies required downloading each of the YouTube videos, converting them to an editor-friendly format, stitching them together and then uploading them again — something that is likely beyond most casual YouTubers’ technical abilities. It won’t always be this way, and soon I believe new technologies will emerge that allow all YouTube users to better leverage the content that their entire community has generated. Once this happens, the remix-culture will really be in full swing.

Part and parcel with viewing YouTube as a platform with open content that can be used and displayed however a content remixer likes is a new way to view YouTube videos: YooouuuTuuube.com. YooouuuTuuube.com takes a normal YouTube video and spits out the frames on a grid before your eyes. The result is pretty different from the normal experience of watching a YouTube video, but it shows the new kind of media that can be created when existing media is open (or at least taken) for use by others. To see it in action, check out this YooouuuTuuube’d version of ‘Junior Kickstart’ by The Go! Team — Enjoy!

It forces some attention grabbing too (follow me @doverd4s).

Anyway, here are some interesting things I’ve tweeted about:

Mass collaboration picked up some old school corner-cutting in Disney films.

If you haven’t seen Auto Tune, check out this video (scroll down).

Good article about old media and a sense of entitlement.

And…I promise to be around more.

This reality looks to soon be a thing of the past. In a couple of days, Wolfram (the people behind the MathWorld resource site) will be launching Wolfram|Alpha, a “computational knowledge engine” that can answer factual questions — essentially deriving new conclusions and results from existing web pages and documents (read the engine’s introduction here).  ReadWriteWeb recently got a chance to play with Alpha, and they seemed very impressed:

In today’s demo, for example, Stephen Wolfram searched for “internet users in europe,” or “weather oakland” – two queries that most users would also use in Google or any other search engine.

Where Alpha exceeds, is in the presentation of its “search” results. When asked for how many internet users there are in Europe, for example, Alpha returned not just the total number, but also various plots and data for every country (apparently Vatican City only has 93 Internet users).

Another query with a very sophisticated result was “uncle’s uncle’s brother’s son.” Now if you type that into Google, the result will be a useless list of sites that don’t even answer this specific question, but Alpha actually returns an interactive genealogic tree with additional information, including data about the ‘blood relationship fraction,’ for example (3.125% in this case).

Similarly, I.B.M. has developed a system that is also able to compute knowledge. In an amusing move, they’ll be introducing the technology to the world by having it compete on Jeopardy!:

In a demonstration match here at the I.B.M. laboratory against two researchers recently, Watson (the system) appeared to be both aggressive and competent, but also made the occasional puzzling blunder.

For example, given the statement, “Bordered by Syria and Israel, this small country is only 135 miles long and 35 miles wide,” Watson beat its human competitors by quickly answering, “What is Lebanon?”

Moments later, however, the program stumbled when it decided it had high confidence that a “sheet” was a fruit.

Missteps aside, these are exciting developments, and represent the introduction of computing to a higher level of information. Initially systems could only compute numeric data presented in very strict formats; this remained the paradigm for a very long time. Only recently has the development of extracting in-text relationships from so-called “unstructured data” made forays into mainstream technology — but such data still required human interpretation and understanding. These parallel developments from Wolfram and I.B.M. take the interactions between machines and information that next step further — which, despite being considerably more technically complicated, is likely to greatly simplify human interaction with computers.

HNIC used to be North America’s sole source for televised hockey games. For Canadians in particular, Saturday was synonomous with one thing: HNIC on CBC. But for years, fans have been asking, “What’s so special about Saturday night?” After all, basic cable broadcasts 2-3 games a week, and if you’re still looking for more, you can purchase the NHL Network (or a team-specific channel like LeafsTV), and watch hockey 7 nights a week. CBC clearly faces a challenge in maintaining the popularity of HNIC. So how exactly are they promoting their product?

As Andrea Bettello wrote here, many fans were outraged when the CBC sold the rights to the HNIC theme song in 2008 (for anyone outside of Canada, the HNIC theme song probably rivals ‘O Canada’ and ‘Happy Birthday’ as the tune most widely recognized by Canadians). But maybe CBC was on to something. After selling the theme song, they held a contest asking Canadians to write the new HNIC theme song, actively engaging thousands of fans in the process. But surely there are further steps CBC could take to engage and retain viewers. (Obviously they have taken such steps or this post would never have been written).

When I sat down to watch the Toronto Maple Leafs get beat by the Philadelphia Flyers on HNIC last Saturday night I wasn’t expecting any Wikinomics-related content from the CBC. But then I was struck by a commercial for ‘Hockey Night MashUp‘. On the Hockey Night MashUp site (which has been in operation since the start of the season), fans can create a mashup highlight reel using a selection of clips from HNIC broadcasts. With the application, fans can choose clips specific to their favourite team. Clips are even categorized (e.g. ‘Goals’ or ‘Celebrations’). Now, this may not seem all that cutting-edge. But, believe me, for HNIC, whose main draw for the past 20 years has been 74 year-old former NHL coach Don Cherry, this is innovative.

I’ve been watching HNIC since I was 3. There were no other games televised, at least in my cable-free home, at that time. Needless to say, HNIC is close to my heart and has special meaning. But in order to resonate with anyone who doesn’t have a deep-seated connection to their broadcasts, HNIC must engage viewers in innovative ways. They indeed seem to be doing so, and not without the help of Wikinomics principles.

(Also note that HNIC has paired with Tim Hortons [sic] on their ‘Every Cup Tells a Story’ campaign [as written about by Jude Fiorillo here], to introduce ‘Stories From the Rink‘).

Because of this when I speak about prosumerism, I like to start by looking at some questions around a very special Dilbert cartoon. Dilbert cartoons, as most people know, poke fun at society and particularly workplace culture, usually highlighting some absurdity that people can relate to. But in this case what I’m saying is that, for perhaps the first time in history, we can argue that companies need to start acting more like Dilbert cartoons, rather than less.

The reason I can say this (and long time wikinomics readers certainly already know this) is because last year, Scott Adams made a major change to the Dilbert.com site – they turned it into a Dilbert Mash up platform. Every day when Scott publishes his new cartoon, an alternate version goes up. In this alternate version,  the images are present in each of the three boxes, but the text in only the first two. Anyone could then login and add their own punchline to the cartoon (it’s since evolved to include Group mash ups and other things I’ll talk about later).To tie it back to the opening lingo, the site is now a prosumer platform.

I was participating in this quite a bit last year, so effectively Scott Adams and I were co-creating cartoons, such as this one:

Please, hold the applause… and the laughter is becoming overwhelming .

Back to the story. So this looks like a cute, fun little example – what could the possible business implications be? Well, let’s start by looking at the perspective of Scott Adams and United Media – why would he/they do this? And would you do the same thing in their place? Would your company – and how would the decision get made?

Read the rest of this post here.

For those of you who haven’t heard of Red vs. Blue, it’s a machinima series (imagine a movie or tv show, but filmed within a video game) based on the popular Xbox 360 game – Halo. I first came across Red vs. Blue when doing some research for work; I watched a few episodes and immediately fell in love with the show. I was also lucky enough to get an interview with Burnie Burns, Co-Founder of the Roosterteeth (RT) community – and producer of the Red vs. Blue episodes.
Burnie Burns and partners, Gustavo Sorola and Geoff Fink chose machinima because it’s an efficient way to produce animation – 3 people can produce around five minutes/ week. They then immediately post the video on the Web – for free.

Some people may not immediately see the value in this business model – but in this case (and many others) it has proven to be very successful. Burnie and his team are able to do something they love full time, and still give it away for free free. The revenues they make just come from other, non-traditional or unconventional sources (so to speak).

This wired magazine article talks about ‘How T-Shirts keep online content free’. According to the article Burnie started selling shirts and caps online (based on the show). “Within months, he was filling hundreds of orders a week, generating enough revenue to pay everyone a salary.” – Pretty impressive. Now if you go on the RT community they’ve expanded their offering to include the aforementioned DVD box sets, calendars, books, music and accessories like mugs and messenger bags. You may think: ‘why would someone buy something they can get online for free?’ Well, I’m a perfect example.

After learning about Red vs. Blue I told my younger sister about the show. She loved it so much that, (no exaggeration) she has literally watched the entire series (all 6 seasons) at least five times over. The addiction to the show, quality of the video, the experience of watching it in your living room on your tv, the fact that you don’t have to click on another link to watch the next episode are all good reasons (to me) to justify the purchase of the DVD box set. To prove that I’m not the only person willing to shell out some $$ to purchase ‘value added’ merchandise this blog post proves that the ‘free’ model is a viable business model and that many others are looking to buy the RvB DVD sets for the holidays.

One final note: T-shirts and DVDs aren’t the only way the RT guys make money. They’ve gotten so good at creating machinima that other video game companies have approached them to create machinima TV commercials or promotional spots for them. So although they don’t make money directly off of the product they spend all their time creating, revenue has come to them in myriad ways.
Here’s the first episode of RvB – The Blood Gulch Chronicles to get you started. But please don’t blame me if you get addicted!

for more please go here or here. I heart RvB!

Denis’ Response: in fairness, I was going to base my decision on the outcome of this videotaped battle between the two candidates, but I think we can all agree it was a tie.

For those of you that might not be up-to-date on your Miocene knowledge, Aquitanian is the first age of the Miocene Epoch, which dates back something like 23 million years ago. If you think I wouldn’t have known that without wikipedia, you would be correct.

As always, you can compare this to the original at www.dilbert.com… and see the rest of my Dilbert Mashups here. They’re positively Messinian!

Enkin is a mapping system that bridges the digital and real worlds. Typical mapping applications show a bird’s eye view whatever location is being investigated. What Enkin does is something called “Live Mode”, which provides an overlay of rich digital information that you use when you look at anything. That probably isn’t very clear, so check out the movie. Skip to about 2:40 for the really cool stuff:

Using the camera and screen, with labels injected, the Android powered mobile device becomes something of a magical lense that can be used to provide us with digital information about the world, overlayed on the world itself, as intermediated by the device. So far the Enkin guys have set this up to work with locations that have been tagged in their map view, but imagine the possibilities if it could integrate with all of the Geodata that’s tagged in Google Earth. You could also integrate this with social mobility services, and set your name to public, then strangers on the street could take a look at you through their phone and see your name floating above your head like in a videogame. Businesses could also geotag deals that they are running, and you’d set your Enkin-enabled device in “deal hunter live mode” where you’d see overlays on businesses including distance and deal. The list goes on and the possibilities are great.

What kinds of overlays of the digital onto the real would you like to see?

Welcome back to another edition of the Wikinomics Roundup!  This time around, we’re going to do a two week roundup, where I capture in brief, some of the thoughts, discoveries, and discussions that graced the blog throughout that period.  There’s some great material so take a look!

In case you missed it, you can catch last week’s roundup HERE.  Friendly reminder: the Wikinomics Roundup has a nice new home on the left side of the page, under Regular Features.

Word of mouth is considered one of the most powerful forms of advertising, so it makes sense that someone would attempt to package and re-sell it.  P&G’s duo of Tremors (for teens), Vocalpoint (for moms), as well as BzzAgent, have been successful in targetting Influencers by putting product samples in their hands, enhancing their user experience, and letting the user talk about the product. I see websites like SocialSpark as being the evolution, or at least the heir, to word-of-mouth marketing: where there are clear financial incentives for bloggers to participate, and advertisers have a direct channel to ‘buy’ authentic sounding opinions that support the product, and which specifically target the desired audience.

Learn more about this evolving advertiser-blogger marketplace @
The netGuide

Last week I spoke with Andrew Mottaz and Blake Johnson, the founders of Portland-based Site9, about their new software as a service offering: ProtoShare. ProtoShare allows web developers to collaboratively create interactive website prototypes, ensuring that everyone is on the same page during the development process. But more importantly, ProtoShare opens the process up to other stakeholder, such as the marketing team, allowing them to follow the project’s progress over time, and provide timely and effective feedback to developers. By improving communication and collaboration within the project team, and between them and their clients, ProtoShare has the potential to revolutionize the process of web design.

Get the inside scoop on this new SaaS offering @
Collaborative Web Design: An Interview with the Creators of ProtoShare

C) Recruiting and retention: Our research shows that the public sector is far from the top-choice of most university graduates. We surveyed over 10,000 youths in 12 countries and outside of Continental Europe, the public sector was dead last when respondants were asked to rank their employer of choice. A large part of the government 2.0 transformation is thus focused on reinventing the public sector workplace so that it does attract the best and brightest, and that when they arrive they have the tools, technologies and organizational cultures to make the impact they desire to. That ability to make an impact is key to Government 2.0. It’s about creating participative cultures that flatten organizational hierarchies and keep talent plugged in and motivated. Some of our partners are looking at replacing upwards of half of their entire workforces over the next 8-10 years. Unless they’re looking for investment bankers that won’t be easy to do. One of the key metrics for Gov 2.0 will be the ability to attract 1a candidates and more importantly the improvement, if any, of retention rates amongst those star employees.

Read the equally insightful parts A and B of the post @
Measuring Gov 2.0

• Connecting and leveraging internal resources – For large organizations dealing with limited internal resources (or in some cases poorly allocated resources after cutbacks) the ability to connect to and leverage internal knowledge and expertise will be extremely valuable.
• Measure twice and cut once – In organizations many times information is horded and work is duplicated. If organizations can utilize collaborative tools to increase organizations transparency and promote collaboration they should be able to operate in a much more efficient manner.
• Marketing in a 2.0 way – I think it will be tempting for many organizations to revert back to their tried and true marketing channels in tough economic times. Investing money where they have established metrics is safe from a job security standpoint, but doesn’t make sense given the direction we see marketing and the customer relationship moving
• Attracting and retaining talent – Look five, or even three years out in your organization and think about how that workforce will change. As the Baby Boomers retire organization will need to be able to attract and retain Net Generation employees. Creating a dynamic and collaborative working environment is one way to accomplish that.

Take a look at the more in-depth rationale @
Could Web 2.0 tools be the saving grace for organizations during a recession?

Before he left work for the day, Donald logged on to the central government’s voter platform and reviewed a list of “upcoming votes and issues that may concern you.” One of the big issues of the day was a bill to ban designer genes. It had actually been drafted by the janitor in Donald’s office. Donald gave his votes by proxy to the New World Party. But the party had not made a decision on this bill. Donald voted against the ban, as the voting system had predicted based on his past voting history. This system of tracking voting behavior had previously suggested Donald transfer his proxy vote from the popular Conservative party to the niche New World party, which he had found was much more in line with his views. Donald donated his monthly allowance for political financing to the party so that it could grow, and garner more influence.

Share your vision of 10 years from now @
2018 – A Vision of the Future

On August 14, 2008…Jeff DeChambeau looks into an exciting new technology frontier:

Here is how I see this playing out: Photosynth is able to infer 3d structures from photographs and (should soon be able to) skin these structures dynamically from the very same photographs. If there was a large enough set photos, Photosynth could infer the shapes, sizes and positions of objects all over the world. Then, with Virtual earth, geotagging data, and the relations between photos, these 3d structures could be mapped into their Virtual Earth platform. Essentially, it should be possible to make a virtual copy of the earth, passively, by processing photos that already exist.

See this extraordinary technology in action @
Remember PhotoSynth? Well, it’s old hat now.

On August 15, 2008…Brittany Creamer introduces cutting edge technology – now affordable:

Shapeways, a new internet-based 3-D printing service, offers rapid prototyping at an affordable price. Send in your digital design file and Shapeways will ship your polymer prototype in less than ten days and won’t charge you an arm and a leg. According to Shapeways, most orders cost between $50 and $150. Shapeway’s proprietary software ensures the design can be built and tweaks small errors in the design before production. Amazingly, Shapeway’s advanced printers can build objects with moveable parts and the clincher is that the price isn’t determined by complexity, but rather by the amount of polymer required.

How can this change the invention and prosumption process? Find out @
Attention Prosumers: 3D Printing Now Affordable

Check back next week for more original Wikinomics insight.  Until next week…

Like Photosynth, Photo Tourism assembles its 3d models from photos on flickr. Photo Tourism, however, allows you to not only add your own photos to a 3d set, but “walk” between the locations where your pictures were taken, virtually. Photo Tourism also allows a user to rotate their point of view around a landmark or object, and can even determine if photos of that landmark/object were taken during the day or at night, grouping them accordingly. This results in a very high “feels like you’re there” experience, but what’s the next step?

This isn’t a fatal blow for Photosynth, though. Microsoft, in what I consider to be a very smart move, has merged the Photosynth (also known as Seadragon) team into the Microsoft Virtual Earth team. Here is how I see this playing out: Photosynth is able to infer 3d structures from photographs and (should soon be able to) skin these structures dynamically from the very same photographs. If there was a large enough set photos, Photosynth could infer the shapes, sizes and positions of objects all over the world. Then, with Virtual earth, geotagging data, and the relations between photos, these 3d structures could be mapped into their Virtual Earth platform. Essentially, it should be possible to make a virtual copy of the earth, passively, by processing photos that already exist.

The user experience that this could provide would be even more mindblowing than the tech demos we’ve seen before. Imagine being able to “walk” through foreign locations that are always as current and up to date as the lmost recent picture uploaded to the master data set. With version control and date-tagging of photos, you could even watch how an arbitrarity bit of the planet changes over time, watching changes in season, volume of visitors, and even cleanliness and litter. We’ll have the world at our fingertips, and be free to peel back its layers and inspect it as deeply as we like.

Scary tangent: I see another application for this technology: people. If this technology can be used to infer 3d structures of buildings, why can’t the same be done for people? I have friends on facebook that are present in upwards of 1000 photos. That’s a lot of data from which to infer a model — very scary, especially given how realistic simulated facial animations have gotten. It’s pretty easy to foresee video-conferecing identity-theft for people who neglected to set their facebook photo privacy settings sufficiently high.

Edit: it already exists!

To understand the wikinomics connection here, you may have to read what wikipedia has to say about termites. Notably:

The termites are a group of social insects usually classified at the taxonomic rank of order Isoptera (but see also taxonomy below). As truly social animals, they are termed eusocial along with the ants and some bees and wasps which are all placed in the separate order Hymenoptera. Termites mostly feed on dead plant material, generally in the form of wood, leaf litter, soil, or animal dung…

As eusocial insects, termites live in colonies that, at maturity, number from several hundred to several million individuals. They are a prime example of decentralised, self-organised systems using swarm intelligence and use this cooperation to exploit food sources and environments that could not be available to any single insect acting alone.

As always, you can check out the original at www.dilbert.com, and see all my other mashups here.

As ususal, the Internet turned out to be the best place to keep up to date on the explosion and the impact including eyewitness accounts, evacuation information, relevant blog posts and lots of multimedia. Click here for the Google maps mashup.

Thanks to our friend, Gerard Dolan, for the link.

As I noted a little while back, the majority of my Dilbert mash ups are now being posted on a different site – you can check them all out here. However, if there’s a direct application to the principles of wikinomics they’ll be posted here, and there’s something about jury duty that speaks to either the wisdom or madness of crowds (depending on your perspective), so this seems to fit quite well with the ‘mass collaboration’ theme. It’s also interesting to note that we recently found out that the Dilbert mash ups are one of the prime conduits to the wikinomics blog for our Google reader subscribers – hopefully this will continue, and those that don’t like them can just look past them!

As always, you can check out the original at www.dilbert.com.

Regular readers of the blog may notice something different about today’s Dilbert mashup: such as the lack of a visible comic, or “mashup” if you will. The reason for this ties back to some fellow named “Rob”, who clearly has no sense of humour and spoiled the fun for the rest of us made an interesting comment on the July 18th mashup. In short, he found the Dilbert mashup to be a distraction not worthy of his attention, and indicated he would likely unsubscribe from the wikinomics blog, even though he really likes the rest of it, if my Dilberts continued messing up his techo-babble /noise. I’m also fairly sure he didn’t want my autograph.

So… we had a quick little review of the whole Dilbert mashup thing, in order to see whether this “Rob” fellow might be onto something. Thinking back, the initial idea behind the mash ups was that the new Dilbert site was an excellent example of the power of wikinomics in action, and what better way to promote such innovations than to participate in them ourselves? And since we have our own blog, wouldn’t it be cool if we could tie each mash up back to the principles of wikinomics in some way, and share these humerous anecdotes with our readers?

Well I sure thought it would be cool – and I think I’ve managed to make a direct connection a few times (such as July 7th, June 27th, June 25th, June 24th, June 20th, June 16th, a real doozy on June 13th, June 11th, June 9th, June 6th, June 5th, a humdinger on May 30th, May 27th, May 26th, May 22nd, May 20th, May 17th, May 16th, an “I almost wet my pants” on May 13th, May 10th, and May 8th/9th. For example).

However, scattered in between these are a few where the connection to wikinomics ranges from “less obvious” to “non-existent”, particularly when unspeakable violence involving coffee cups is prominently involved in the initial storyline. These posts may very well lead certain readers to question why exactly they are on the wikinomics site / in their reader – fair enough. However, without them we lose the regular publishing cycle to draw in the readers who, unlike “Rob”, actually like to see them daily, even in the cases where the wikinomics connections are weak. Such as my Mom and I.

So what to do when faced with such a dilemma? Simply embrace some of the principles of wikinomics, such as openness and collaboration, and launch Denis’ Dilbert Mash Ups on the blogger.com platform. Whenever I do a Dilbert mash up it will be published there, and on certain occasions, if the wikinomics connection is strong enough, we may also point to them here. That should make everyone happy, non?

As always, you’re invited to throw your hat into the ring and make your own at dilbert.com.

Thanks to Nicholas for this post – it’s refreshing to be called an exception in a good way – and to Luke for commenting on the post and directing people to the site. There is a 96.3% chance your life will improve if you follow their lead and send readers my way (you mean you don’t remember my first mash up?)

As always, you can check out the original (and all the other mash ups) at www.dilbert.com. Click on the Dilbert tag below to see all 52 of my mash ups (and counting…).

Winners will be selected at random through a random integer Web app, please leave a valid e-mail address.

Why random? Wouldn’t it be better to select from the submissions based on merit – perhaps even using a community voting application? At minimum, wouldn’t this provide more incentive for companies to really crystalize their ideas in a compelling way, and make the post (and comment section) that much more interesting to readers?

You can check out the original, and all the other mash ups, at www.dilbert.com.

As always, you can check out the original (and all the other mash ups) at www.dilbert.com. To celebrate my 50th mash up on the Dilbert platform, I thought that it was about time that I started branching out into a new genre – action films. The graphic below is not for the faint of heart, but it was recently revealed that Hellboy overpowered Hancock in the US, so somebody had to take a stand north of the border…

As always, you can check out the original (and all the other mash ups) at www.dilbert.com. If these themes keep up I’m going to have to add “random violence” to the tag cloud.

As always, check out www.dilbert.com for the original and all the other mash ups – now on to my comment on voting.

I have a group of people that I know who regular read my Dilbert cartoons, and they are extremely blunt in their assessments – whether they’re great, terrible, or somewhere in between. Interestingly enough, whenever they say that I’ve done a “good or better” job lately, I tend to find I have a relatively large number of ratings on the Dilbert site – but the ratings tend to be quite low. One possibility is that everyone I know has equally bad senses of humor, but I’m going to ignore that for now to look at what could be a fundamental flaw in the voting system.

There are no financial incentives for doing a Dilbert Mash up, just like there aren’t financial incentives to participate in many other collaborative platforms (like Wikipedia, etc.). In turn, those of us crazy enough to participate regularly in such things are likely, whether we admit it or not, to be interested in building a “reputation”. In the Dilbert mash up case, such reputations come through the voting mechanism – do people find you funnier than others or not?

Now unless it’s changed recently, the only way to vote on the comics is to be a registered user on the site. I would think the only people interested in registering are the people that want to do the mash ups. In turn, if they are interested in relative reputations, they’re incentive is to vote low scores for everyone else – particularly anything that looks half decent. It would be like a class full of students, knowing they were being graded on a bell curve, voting on each other’s scores.

I’m in no way saying that most people do this – in fact, it looks like the vast majority are like me and never vote at all, which leads to a low overall vote count that is easy to sway. In turn, when you see vote tallies in the single digits, do these scores really mean anything? And if so, what? Could a low score actually indicate that a comic was funnier than one with a high score (or no score at all)?

While I’m focused on the Dilbert example here, it’s more of a broader question in terms of mass collaboration / wisdom of the crowds platforms – are the incentives of the crowd aligned with the outcome the platform is trying to achieve? In a future post I’ll tackle some examples of situations this has (or might) arise that have far greater implications than how my Dilbert cartoon was rated…

Check out the original, and all the other mash ups, at www.dilbert.com.

Sadly, I don’t think I can compete with the sweater for the dead squirrel today – check out the original, and all the other mash ups, at www.dilbert.com.