|1) Four important concepts:
- "Crowd". Large enough number of people. Maybe, I don't know, more than 5. I guess it depends on the problem domain. Panflu as a whole is huge. More specific domains may need less people.
- "Diverse". Different brains, biographies and interests. All of us are biased, but in different directions.
- "Independent". In any kind of meeting, those who talks first or loudest do have an effect on the rest of the conversation. So it's interesting to give (or grab) everyone individual time to think before we all share. I don't know if TLC modellers worked independently of each other, but such independence appears to be really important, a "must have" thing.
- "Share". To be a crowd, folks must somehow share their thinking. Sometimes even without talking, like people who pass each other by on a narrow pedestrian corridor, or when customers pay or don't pay a price for a certain fashionable item.
2) How do we define (describe, not prescribe) our "crowd"?
- newFluWiki2.com? No. It's obviously more than that.
- Flublogia in general (forums, websites, blogs)? Again, no. It's more than that.
- Include all entities that publish their plans (governments, businesses, communities)? Include all journalists, more or less enlightened? Include conversations outside the internet? Include the silent ones too?
3) What do crowds do?
- Crowds are "wise" or not regarding perception. "What exactly is the nature of the pandemic challenge?"
- Crowds also deal with actionable creativity: coming up with solutions, possible things to do.
- Crowds are good (or not) with decisions: selecting specific sets of things to do among the whole menu of possibilities.
4) Now, what can or could or should we do with these insights?
I don't know. At least yet.
I think it's important to keep "number", "diversity", "independence" and "sharing".
How to do (or rethink or improve) all that, I'm not sure.
After all, I'm just like each one reading this: an individual. ;-)