From crowdresearch
Jump to: navigation, search


As Daemo continues to evolve and mature, so to does our understanding or organizational and operational models. To that end and in the spirit of rapid prototyping, we shall apply a critical eye to our current structure, based on a Leadership Board, as well as other appropriate models to assertain which process is best suited for supporting Daemo. Through Milestones and rapid prototyping, we will identify what is desirable in an organizational and operational model and which approaches best suit/satisfy those needs. We will also grapple with issues such as scalability, legitimacy, participation, etc.


1. Insight into the Custodian Model of Governance. Proposed by Jsilver.

2. Beginning of Op/Gov dialogue in anticipation of CHI paper. (Also posted on Operations wiki)

3. Narrative on the first round of op/gov field work.

4. Additional ideas on the first round of op/gov field work


6. Crowd Intelligence and Open Governance




10. Open Governance Survey









Current Project/Wiki Pages

Current Project/Bibliography

Leadership Board



Open Allocation

OnLine Community

  • Iriberri, A., & Leroy, G. (2009). A life-cycle perspective on online community success. ACM Comput. Surv., 41(2), 1–29.
  • Wenger, E. et al.(2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Harvard Bus.
  • Cothrel, J.P. Measuring the success of an online community. Strategy & Leadership 28, 2 (2000), 17–21.
  • Kraut, R. E., & Resnick, P. (2012). Building successful online communities: Evidence-based social design. MIT. (Michael referenced a chapter from this book)
  • Kraut, R., & Fiore, A. (2014). The role of founders in building online groups. Proc. Of CSCW, 722–732.

Custodian Group




Link to Op/Gov related work: 1.


  • Article: Saxton, Gregory D., Onook Oh, and Rajiv Kishore. "Rules of crowdsourcing: Models, issues, and systems of control." Information Systems Management30.1 (2013): 2-20.

3.Managing Uncertainties in Networks

4. Designing Successful Governance Groups: Lessons for Leaders from Real-World Examples

5. Multistakeholder as Governance Groups: Observations from Case Studies

6. Matthews, T. et al. (2014). Beyond End User Content to Collaborative Knowledge Mapping: Interrelations Among Community Social Tools. CSCW. (pp. 900–910).

7. Matthews, Tara, et al. "Goals and perceived success of online enterprise communities: what is important to leaders & members?." Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 2014.

8. Porter, C.E. A typology of virtual communities: A multidisciplinary foundation for future research. J. of CMC 10,1 '04.

9. Holmes, P., & Cox, A. (2011). “Every group carries the flavour of the admins”: leadership on Flickr. IJWBC, 7(7), 376–391.

10. Kim, A. J. (2000). Community building on the web : Secret strategies for successful online communities. Peachpit Press.

11. Preece, J. (2000). Online communities: Designing usability and supporting socialbilty. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

12. Butler, B. et al. (2002). Community effort in online groups: Who does the work and why? In Leadership at a distance. Erlbaum.

13. Panciera, K. et al. (2009). Wikipedians are born, not made: a study of power editors on Wikipedia. Proc. ACM Group, 51–60.

14. Preece, J., & Shneiderman, B. (2009). The reader-to-leader framework: Motivating technology-mediated social participation. AIS Transactions on Human-Computer Interaction, 1(1), 13–32.

15. Nonnecke, B., & Preece, J. (2000). Lurker demographics: Counting the silent. Proc. of CHI, 73–80.

16. Nonnecke, B., & Preece, J. (2001). Why lurkers lurk. AMCIS 2001 Proceedings, 294.