Revised Paragraph

Original: It is first necessary to define what exactly Johnson meant when he introduces the concept of collective intelligence, and the varying interpretations by Davidson and Lethem. Johnson sees collective intelligence as “intelligence and personality and learning that emerges from the bottom up” (194). A common theme is the idea that intelligence derives from the bottom and works its way up through the system, rather than intelligence being concentrated at the top and working its way down to the individuals. Davidson also believes in this system with crowdsourcing, as he describes: “Crowdsourcing thinking is very different from credentialing, or relying on top-down expertise. […] No matter how expert you are, no matter how brilliant, we can improve, we can learn, by sharing insights and working together collectively” (51). The flaw of the current system relies on experts in the field to share their knowledge. However, their knowledge is limited due to the constricted, systematic thinking that their formal education creates. He applies the concept of collective intelligence, as the intelligence of the group and the collective thinking of the individuals among the group will far exceed the knowledge of the experts.

Revised: Johnson first introduces the concept of collective intelligence to describe the process of development from the bottom-up, and Davidson applies a similar approach to crowdsourcing. Johnson sees collective intelligence as “intelligence and personality and learning that emerges from the bottom up” (194). A common theme between Johnson and Davidson is the idea that intelligence derives from the bottom and works its way up through the system, rather than intelligence being concentrated at the top and working its way down to the individuals. Johnson specifically sees intelligence as the product of numerous subsidiary variables working in a connected system. Davidson also believes in this system with crowdsourcing, as he describes, “Crowdsourcing thinking is very different from credentialing, or relying on top-down expertise. […] No matter how expert you are […] we can learn, by sharing insights and working together collectively” (51). The flaw of the current system relies on experts in the field to share their knowledge. However, their knowledge is limited due to the constricted, systematic thinking that their formal education creates since their education derives from learning from the top, the elite of a profession, rather than the common people at the bottom. He applies the concept of collective intelligence, as the intelligence of the group and the collective thinking of the individuals among the group will far exceed the knowledge of the experts.

I first revised my topic sentence to be more specific, and to only mention Johnson and Davidson, as I do not discuss Lethem in this paragraph. Then, I further analyzed both of the quotes I presented, comparing Johnson’s and Davidson’s thoughts more thoroughly. Finally, I shortened the second quote, as I agreed with one of my reviewers that the quote I added had too much extraneous language. This revised paragraph contributes to my thesis as it draws a clearer comparison between Johnson and Davidson, and how their idea or organized complexity and crowdsourcing is similar, before I go on to draw multiple distinctions between them.