network+concepts

[|power law] (Clay Shirky) Diversity plus freedom of choice creates inequality, and the greater the diversity, the more extreme the inequality

... as the number of options rise, the curve becomes more extreme. This is a counter-intuitive finding - most of us would expect a rising number of choices to flatten the curve, but in fact, increasing the size of the system increases the gap between the #1 spot and the median spot

... most elements in a power law system are below average, because the curve is so heavily weighted towards the top performers

reasons people's choices do affect one another. If we assume that any blog chosen by one user is more likely, by even a fractional amount, to be chosen by another user, the system changes dramatically

He goes onto discuss fairness (it was fair when the article is written but won't be fair in the future) and the inevitable transformation of the meaning of the word blog: " At the head will be webloggers who join the mainstream media (a phrase which seems to mean "media we've gotten used to.") The transformation here is simple - as a blogger's audience grows large, more people read her work than she can possibly read, she can't link to everyone who wants her attention, and she can't answer all her incoming mail or follow up to the comments on her site. The result of these pressures is that she becomes a broadcast outlet, distributing material without participating in conversations about it."

metcalfe's law
 * Metcalfe's law** states that the value of a [|telecommunications network] is proportional to the square of the number of users of the system (//n//2)

wikipedia: [|metcalfe's law] (it's disputed)

Andrew Odlyzko and Benjamin Tilly [|argue against]: "The fundamental fallacy underlying Metcalfe's (Law) is in the assumption that all connections or all groups are equally valuable," the researchers report. If Metcalfe's Law were true, there would have been tremendous economic incentives to accelerate network mergers that in practice take place slowly. "Metcalfe's Law provides irresistible incentives for all networks relying on the same technology to merge or at least interconnect." The researchers propose a less dramatic rule of thumb: the value of a network with n members is not n squared, but rather n times the logarithm of n. That means, for example, that the total value of two networks with 1,048,576 members each is only 5 percent more valuable together compared to separate. Metcalfe's Law predicts a 100 percent increase in value by merging the networks. It's not a merely academic issue. "Historically there have been many cases of networks that resisted interconnection for a long time," the researchers say, pointing to incompatible telephone, e-mail and text messaging standards. Their network effect law, in contrast to Metcalfe's, shows that incumbent powers have a reason to shut out smaller new arrivals. When two networks merge, "the smaller network gains considerably more than the larger one. This produces an incentive for larger networks to refuse to interconnect without payment, a very common phenomenon in the real economy," the researchers conclude.

[|Dunbar number] (Christopher Allen)

This all leads me to hypothesize that the optimal size for active group members for creative and technical groups -- as opposed to exclusively survival-oriented groups, such as villages -- hovers somewhere between 25-80, but is best around 45-50. Anything more than this and the group has to spend too much time "grooming" to keep group cohesion, rather then focusing on why the people want to spend the effort on that group in the first place -- say to deliver a software product, learn a technology, promote a meme, or have fun playing a game. Anything less than this and you risk losing critical mass because you don't have [|requisite variety]. (the whole post is very good)