I was watching earlier this evening the National Geographic Channel documentary Unabomber: The Secret History. And I was reminded that the FBI's decision, quite controversially, to publish the Unabomber's manifesto was in fact a very early instance of a government organization trusting in the power of collaborative social networks. The documentary makers interviewed the FBI agents who were in charge of the case. Their first instinct was not to publish the manifesto for all the obvioius, traditional reasons, mostly centering around the "not rewarding terrorists" argument. But it was only because the manifesto was published and widely circulated on the internet that Ted Kaczynski's brother David finally realized his hermit brother could be the Unabomber. (Actually it was his wife who first made the connection.)

A couple of quick lessons for government officials seeking to promote social networks as part of a campaign toward smarter government:

  • Your first significant interactions will feel very risky to you, well because they are risky in the sense that you are breaking traditional decisoin/action paradigms.
  • If you make the collaborative network large enough, someone out there will have the answer. You essentially have two choices: a closed, "expert" network or an open, diverse network. If you have an expert network inherently then you will not have diversity.