T H E I N T E R N AT I O N A L
JOURNAL
of SPORT
& SOCIETY
Volume 1, Number 1
Nerd Play: Puzzle Hunting as Participatory
Knowledge Creation
Zachary McDowell
www.SportAndSociety.com
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORT AND SOCIETY
http://www.SportandSocietyJournal.com
First published in 2010 in Champaign, Illinois, USA by Common Ground Publishing LLC
www.CommonGroundPublishing.com.
© 2010 (individual papers), the author(s)
© 2010 (selection and editorial matter) Common Ground
Authors are responsible for the accuracy of citations, quotations, diagrams, tables and
maps.
All rights reserved. Apart from fair use for the purposes of study, research, criticism or
review as permitted under the Copyright Act (Australia), no part of this work may be
reproduced without written permission from the publisher. For permissions and other
inquiries, please contact
<cg-support@commongroundpublishing.com>.
ISSN: 2152-7857
Publisher Site: http://www.SportandSocietyJournal.com
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORT AND SOCIETY is peer-reviewed,
supported by rigorous processes of criterion-referenced article ranking and qualitative
commentary, ensuring that only intellectual work of the greatest substance and highest
significance is published.
Typeset in Common Ground Markup Language using CGCreator multichannel
typesetting system
http://www.commongroundpublishing.com/software/
Nerd Play: Puzzle Hunting as Participatory Knowledge
Creation
Zachary McDowell, University of Massachusetts, Massachusetts, USA
Abstract: In a world of ever-evolving networks, both social and digital, there is an overwhelming
amount of information regarding networked space and the construction of knowledge within that space.
In studying the utilization of technology in these collaborative environments what remains interesting
is not necessarily the technology itself but the way that individuals and organizations utilize technology,
and how the technology transforms the individuals and organizations. Until recently, hierarchical
structures were necessary for organizations to communicate and to perform tasks and achieve goals
with relative ease. Now, through the utilization of speciic technologies, organizations cannot only
decide on different organizational dynamics, but the entire organization itself can be dispersed rather
than within close proximity as was the obvious case. Decentralization of power within a team, while
not unheard of, was, as we all know, an uncommon occurrence until recent years. Pierre Lévy’s Collective Intelligence elucidates the goal of this type of team is not just to “win” at their game, but additionally it is the re-invention of team dynamic for better collaboration. This paper investigates Team
Codex’s organization in competing at the MIT Mystery hunt to better understand Knowledge Communities and how a team in a decentralized environment has excelled at a game with ever-changing
rules.
Keywords: Game Theory, Organization, Decentralization, Knowledge Community
I
N A WORLD of ever-evolving social and digital networks, there is an overwhelming
amount of information regarding networked space and the construction of knowledge
within that space. We collaborate in classrooms or businesses all the time in many different ways, utilizing a myriad of tools of varying technological levels, from blackboards
to wikis, and everything in between.
In studying the utilization of technology in these collaborative environments what remains
interesting is not necessarily the technology itself, but the way individuals and organizations
utilize technology, and how the technology becomes a catalyst to transform both the individuals and organizations in which they participate. Until recently, hierarchical structures
were necessary for organizations to communicate and to perform tasks and achieve goals
with relative ease. Now, through the utilization of speciic technologies, organizations cannot
only use different organizational dynamics, but the entire organization can be dispersed
rather than function within close proximity. Of course, technology has advanced far more
than the simplistic understanding of bridging distances between distant locations. In recent
years, decentralization of power within an organization, has taken on new meaning. Newer
technologies allow new avenues for agency while still allowing for the rapid decision making
that is necessary in a fast-paced environment.
It is important to note that new technologies, although they allow certain possibilities to
arise that otherwise might not have been feasible, only amplify the range of possibilities
The International Journal of Sport and Society
Volume 1, Number 1, 2010, http://www.SportandSocietyJournal.com, ISSN 2152-7857
© Common Ground, Zachary McDowell, All Rights Reserved, Permissions:
cg-support@commongroundpublishing.com
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORT AND SOCIETY
available in the irst place.1 What is unique about this phenomenon is not, as some have
suggested, the creation of new possibilities, but the act of discovering and utilizing new
possibilities by those who might never have uncovered those possibilities.
Pierre Lévy’s Collective Intelligence, albeit rather utopian, laid out a particular set of encounters toward the emergence of these types of communities that include: “listening, expression, decision-making, evaluation, organization, connection,” creating a “fully transparent
market for ideas, arguments, projects, initiatives, expertise, and resources, one which pertinent
connections are established as quickly as possible.”2
This investigation into the workings of knowledge communities remains indebted to
Lévy’s work, focusing on the intention of the human community. Technology, utilized in
the way I will elucidate, does not function as an extra-human force, but merely as an emergence of human possibility, redeining our interactions, rather than seeing technology as
something we internalize, to realize something within ourselves rather than expressed through
external augmentation.
Through an investigation of a community focused on the creation of the production of
ideas, where “pertinent connections are established as quickly as possible,” I will attempt
to interpret Lévy’s work as practical, applied theory. Rather than a utopian no-place, Levy’s
theory will ind a place in exemplifying the inner workings of a team of puzzle solving volunteers, focused on improving collaboration for knowledge production.
Puzzle Solving and Puzzle Hunting
It may be fair to say that a majority of human effort deals in one way or another with problem
solving. Whether a large problem such as an economic crisis or a small problem such as
inding what to eat for dinner, a majority of our time is spent in pursuit of solutions to our
current situation. The Author of The Electronic Eye, David Lyon, points out “modern societies are almost by deinition preoccupied with problem-solving.”3 The race for better, faster,
and cheaper means of production of knowledge is rooted in the notion of the solution. The
answer to a problem that arises, speciically a singular answer, serves as the focus of the
majority of human mind labor. (This isn’t to say that multiple solutions aren’t put into play,
but simply to maintain that the way in which we problem solve is by singularizing a particular answer to a particular problem).
A particularly interesting problem solving phenomena takes place yearly at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, known as the MIT Puzzle Hunt. Over 1000 people swarm the
campus annually for a 72-hour straight puzzle-solving competition. Some of the teams include
over 50 people, including the team that I will describe, Team Codex.
Within the hunt, each of the participating teams occupies a separate space with Internet
access, with instructions passed onto the teams from “HQ” (the team running the hunt).
These instructions arrive in various forms: paper, board games, Internet-based puzzles, or
any other array of puzzles. The entire hunt is organized in a grand theme or narrative (some
1
David Lyon, The Electronic Eye: The Rise of Surveillance Society (Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press,
1994)
2
Pierre Lévy, Collective Intelligence: Mankind’s Emerging World in Cyberspace. Translated by Robert Bononno,
(Cambridge: Perseus Books, 1999), 75
3
David Lyon, The Electronic Eye: The Rise of Surveillance Society (Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press,
1994), 162
18
ZACHARY MCDOWELL
recent hunts have been a whodunit murder mystery, escapades through hell, and escape from
a ictional universe) and the goal of the puzzle hunt is always to ind a hidden coin.
The basic structure of the hunt is that teams solve puzzles, which then link into metapuzzles, and those meta-puzzles link into a meta-meta, which then leads to a run-around
puzzle and then, to the coin. There are usually no instructions (or if there are, they are meant
to mislead or deceive) on either how to solve the puzzles or how to order and arrange the
meta puzzles. There are often over 100 puzzles in the recent Mystery Hunts, and each puzzle
takes many person-hours to solve. Sufice to say, the Mystery Hunt is an incredibly complex
event that takes an amazing amount of effort to complete (or in which to compete).
The teams that compete in the puzzle hunt come together because the hunt is impossible
without an immense contribution of brainpower, as these puzzles are designed for collaboration (due to the extreme complexity and amount of data collection involved) However,
team members are volunteers – friends and strangers alike, collaborating to solve puzzles
in an eficient manner. These communities of puzzle solving individuals must quickly form
around particular objectives, working out organizational issues on the ly, as there is little
time to debate technique or protocol.
Types of Communities
In organized communities, there are a myriad of options that deine roles and responsibilities
of the community members in regard to agency. The types of structure these communities
can take are dictatorial / hierarchical, consensus, democratic / parliamentary, wiki-ocracy,
and open-source.4 These structural formations of community offer speciic advantages and
disadvantages to knowledge communities. Although the irst three types of communities are
common sense, the latter two types of communities are often misunderstood.
The dictatorial / hierarchical community is advantageous above all the others for decisionmaking speed. Although this community doesn’t foster as much of an inclusive spirit as the
others, leaving many members completely left out of the decision-making processes, the
lack of organizational issues and the speed at which decisions regarding direction is far
greater than all the others.
Consensus-style communities are advantageous for their inclusive dialogic technique of
decision-making. Although majority may rule, every member has veto power, potentially
slowing all decision-making to a standstill until a solution can be made. This style of community, although rich in participation, could potentially be slower than all others as far as
mobility of the community in the face of dilemmas.
Democratic / Parliamentary style communities balance out the potentially hazardous decision-making deadlock of the consensus model. However, democratic communities are still
slow moving in comparison to a dictatorial style community, although they foster a far
greater input and decision-making transparency.
Contrary to popular belief, a wiki is not a democrocratic entity. A wiki works through a
technology that allows changes to be made to the information by any member of the community. Although many wiki pages are ripe with discussion on potential changes, the changes
4
These distinctions are taken from a short-session at Barcamp Boston 4, an un-conference dedicated to technology
(more information at http://www.barcampboston.org). The discussion oriented around a pragmatic approach toward
community building in an online environment.
19
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORT AND SOCIETY
made may or may not represent a majority of the community members. Therefore, a wikiocracy, or wiki-style community, is a de facto consensus community, assuming consensus
of the community if any change isn’t made. This type of community is lexible for quickdecision making and long term debate, allowing for decisions to be made in a moment’s
notice when necessary. This type of community also allows for a great number of voices to
be heard, if participants wish to be heard. However, the community will presuppose consensus
by the members that do not raise voice in objection to decisions made (a study on Wikipedia
found that 73.4 percent of all edits were made by two percent of the users).5 Effectively, the
wiki-based community is a consensus community that does not need to wait for the rest of
the community to collaborate, and moves forward with decisions when decisions are needed.
However, if challenged effectively, there is still a possibility of some decisions being held
up indeinitely (just search Wikipedia for any charged topic and visit the discussion page).
Finally, the open-source community is probably the most misunderstood type of community
(outside actual open-source communities, that is). The open-source community offers a high
level of community participation while retaining the speed of a dictatorial community’s decision making by employing a gatekeeper as the decision maker. The key difference between
an open-source community is that the gatekeeper remains, for lack of a better word, ‘in
power’ through the will of the community. If upset with the gatekeeper, the community may
depose the gatekeeper at any time, either reformulating the community or simply electing
another gatekeeper.
The latter two community models are most appropriate for an investigation of the puzzle
hunt, and Team Codex. The utilization of the de facto consensus, wiki-based community,
linked with supervised mass participatory culture open-source model in Team Codex creates
a unique environment for problem-solving on a massive scale. Furthermore, this particular
intersection of structures allows for incredible transparency, allowing input at every step of
the way.
Knowledge Communities and Collective Intelligence
Pierre Lévy’s Collective Intelligence outlines the notion of knowledge creation in a collaborative environment. Published in 1999, two years before the launch of Wikipedia, Lévy’s
work seems to predict some of the technologies and usages of technologies in the creation
of knowledge in the coming years.
Rather than what is typically seen in a knowledge community, a directed and monitored
engagement, Lévy’s notion of Collective Intelligence (CI) focused on a more organic alliance
of mindwork, opening up possibility for new ways of thinking and collaboration.
Collective intelligence is less concerned with self-control of human communities than
with a fundamental letting-go that is capable of altering our very notion of identity and
the mechanisms of domination and conlict, lifting restrictions on heretofore banned
communications, and effecting the mutual liberation of isolated thoughts.6
5
Lawrence Lessig. Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy. (New York: Penguin Press,
2008), 158
6
Pierre Lévy, Collective Intelligence: Mankind’s Emerging World in Cyberspace. Translated by Robert Bononno,
(Cambridge: Perseus Books, 1999), xxviii
20
ZACHARY MCDOWELL
Obviously, Lévy is concerned with the characteristics of possibility and potential in regards
to communication and knowledge creation, and not on restrictive tendencies of guided processes. Lévy clariies this concept of opening towards potential further: “The basis and goal
of collective intelligence is the mutual recognition and enrichment of individuals rather than
the cult of fetishized or hypostatized communities.”7
Lévy’s notion of community describes the community that is in lux, positing directional
modes as increasingly “better” but not inferring static understanding. In essence, a community
that is constantly engaged in a hermeneutic inquiry towards understanding itself, is pure
engagement with questioning, a perpetual openness to new understanding. Of course, community self-understanding is not the overt goal of knowledge communities, but it is a byproduct or necessary component in the continual struggle for the community itself. What
Lévy sets up is a model that looks not at form, but of intention, a community with directive
that, as he puts it:
…responds to an ethics of the best rather than a morality of the good. Static, deinitive,
decontextualized, the good is imposed a priori, on top of any existing situation,
whereas the best (the best possible) is situated, relative, dynamic and provisional. The
good doesn’t change; the best is different wherever it is found. The good is opposed to
evil; it is exclusionary.8
Lévy’s community-model reverses the notion of community structure, formulating structure
in response to the needs of the community.
Although Collective Intelligence leans heavily toward an impossible utopian vision, Lévy
states an important caveat: “[this] does not imply a sovereign people, one that is reiied,
fetishized, attached to a territory, identiied by soil or blood, but a strong people, one perpetually engaged in a process of self-knowing and self-creation, a people in labor, a people
yet to come.”9 Lévy’s comment, to come, points us in the appropriate direction for exploring
what this community might look like, rather than thinking of this as a static community that
is ixated on a goal, but rather, a community continually occupied in improving, testing, and
reformulating their interactions to better itself.
Team Codex
Team Codex is one of the numerous teams that participate yearly in the MIT Mystery Hunt.
A volunteer group of over 50 on-site individuals, with many remote, off-site members that
collaborate through digital-space only, the Team spends roughly 72 hours a year together
solving some of the most complex puzzles in the world. The sheer magnitude of the team’s
efforts along with the incredible eficiency of organizing what is sometimes merely a set of
strangers with a common purpose, makes this team an interesting example of a Knowledge
Community.
Team Codex is organized roughly as a wiki-based community, with some aspects of opensource. There are a few “leaders” that, to the average member, are indistinguishable from
rest of the membership, other than those people who end up performing a majority of the
7
Ibid, 13
Ibid 250
9
Ibid 89
8
21
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORT AND SOCIETY
necessary ‘work’ to maintain the team’s operation. These are the open-source community
‘gatekeepers,’ the maintainers of process, and the instigators of change that take the longview for the community.
Every process of the group is designed to be fully transparent, opening up the group dynamics to input from all sides via the wiki. This organizational technique allows for deliberation and discussion for months before the actual event, when people are often too busy to
pay attention to larger organizational issues.
A couple months before the hunt, the team starts to get prepared for the event, sending
out notices to the listserv (group email), informing members to sign up for the hunt and
various other necessary messages. Donations for, and of food, are organized; ride-shares are
established, and various arrangements are made. If “HQ” releases a missive regarding necessary preparations, they are incorporated into the “to-do list” for the hunt.
The ‘gatekeepers’ ensure the technology is working ‘properly’ as they know the entire
hunt rests on their ability to run smoothly. Out of the 1000+ people involved in each year’s
Mystery Hunt, Team Codex has come within hours of winning the hunt on more than one
occasion. Every moment counts, and start-up time can easily hurt such a large team, wasting
hundreds of person-hours.
Technology Based Collaboration
What we’ve found is that simple is best. If it requires instructions, it’s probably not
going to work. Google spreadsheets became popular because it’s easier than editing a
wiki. I’ve posted instructions on how to setup new chat rooms (no chat logging by default
on new rooms), [but] it’s never been done. We use a simple mailing list for early collaboration, as the hunt gets near we’ll get together in a chat room. (Wiki Response by
Jeff Jakubowski)
Due to the size of the team (as well as the number of remote participants), an effort on this
scale would be virtually impossible without an intricate system to coordinate teams. To assist
in coordinating people in real-time, Team Codex implements various technologies.
In a group populated by members with high levels of technical competency, it might seem
natural to implement powerful, complex instruments for interaction. Many of the members
are not only technophiles, but also programmers, and quite literally speak multiple languages
to interact with various technologies. Many types of technologies used in the past have had
various degrees of success, but were all replaced by simpler technologies when they became
available, as the more complex technologies tended to hinder rather than help the team
members and therefore the team itself. Martin Heidegger explains this phenomenon in a way
that is helpful to understanding the general consensus of the usage of technology through
the concepts of ready-to-hand (something “works” for the task we wish to use it for without
problem) and present-at-hand (something is “there” but it is “broken” to us, unusable for
our intended task):
When we notice what is un-ready-to-hand, that which is ready-to-hand enters the mode
of obtrusiveness. The more urgently we need what is missing, and the more authentically
it is encountered in its un-readiness-to-hand, all the more obtrusive does that which is
ready-to-hand become -- so much so, indeed, that it seems to lose its character of
22
ZACHARY MCDOWELL
readiness-to-hand. It reveals itself as something just present-at-hand and no more, which
cannot be budged without the thing that is missing. The helpless way in which we stand
before it is a deicient mode of concern, and as such it uncovers the Being-just-presentat-hand-and-no-more of something ready-to-hand.10
Although his writing is not known for being ready-to-hand itself, Heidegger makes an important point in that not only does the tool lose the properties of tool-ness, but it becomes
‘obtrusive’ to us, merely junk that gets in the way of our intended task. The tool, when recognized as junk by the member of the community, becomes obstructive to the goal of the
member, impeding the community by impeding the member(s).
Team Codex’s technological implementations have not always gone smoothly. Previous
years have used member edited wiki pages, which are now set up beforehand to be autopopulated by other more transparent technologies (such as Google Spreadsheets and ‘bots’
within Jabber Chat). With little time for learning curve, the members gather and must be
ready to start ‘working’ within a few hours of arrival (and sometimes they expect to start
working within a few minutes). Aside from the necessary security measures of entering the
access codes for the wireless network, accessing the wiki, signing up and in to the chat room,
and signing into Google, there is now, little that the average member needs to do to begin
puzzling. For the average member on Team Codex, these are simple tasks, designed to be
as easy as using a key to unlock a door. These technologies are transparent; one types into
a box, and words appear. Other than the occasional mathematical code in Google Spreadsheets
(which is similar to utilizing Microsoft Excel), there is little outside the average computer
user’s experience of point-and-click, to begin collaboration.
There are three main technologies that Team Codex utilizes to assist collaboration (aside
from the obvious networked computers and cell phones). First, the team utilizes a wiki to
coordinate major events and create a hub of information for the entire hunt. This wiki is
populated beforehand by the ‘gatekeeper’, with little collaboration other than to sign up for
various activities (signing up for the hunt itself or voting on types of pizza for dinner during
the hunt). The wiki acts as a central repository of information, announcing speciic events,
displaying chat transcripts, and providing links to Google Spreadsheets.
The second technology that Team Codex uses is the Jabber Chat client, a set of chat rooms
for discussion with others on various puzzles. Each puzzle has a chat room, and there is a
main room for larger announcements and bigger-picture discussions. The chat client employs
a ‘bot’ that populates certain parts of the wiki when prompted, and stores the chat log so that
each member can go through and re-read all of the chat log rather than asking obvious
questions and hindering other members when trying to catch up.
Third and inally, Team Codex relies more than anything on Google Spreadsheets. With
puzzles that often require dozens of person-hours to solve due to excessive amounts of research, it would be nearly impossible to collaborate without a spreadsheet that allowed
multiple people to access all at once in real-time. Google Spreadsheets allows members to
input data on the same or different, sheets, to create a repository of data that is often needed
to even begin many puzzles.
10
Martin Heidegger, Being and Time, translated by J. Macquarrie and E. Robinson (New York: Harper & Row,
1962), 103
23
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORT AND SOCIETY
Google spreadsheets are great. For puzzles that can be parallelized, it allows many
people at once to work on a puzzle. It also allows everyone who’s working on the puzzle
to see the progress in real time. For people who come to a puzzle later, the chat logging
lets them see what people were thinking. Google sheets are also better, again because
they are simple. Everyone can click in a cell and edit a spreadsheet. The wiki language
presents a challenge, in part I think because it’s foreign to so many people, where the
spreadsheet is familiar… Seeing ten people working on a spreadsheet, simultaneously
illing in items is pretty cool, and not something that could be done with pencil and
paper. (Wiki Response by Jeff Jakubowski and Andrew Mosalik)
What becomes increasingly obvious is that where “electronic technologies have augmented
and ampliied”11 the member’s endeavors, technology “works”. When the technology tries
to act as anything but a passive ampliication, when it needs additional input from the user
to provide function, the technology becomes conspicuous, obtrusive, and an obstruction in
the way of achieving the intended result.
Participatory Culture
[The leaders of the group] really try not to tell people to do things. It’s more along the
line of suggestions. (Wiki Response by Jeff Jakubowski)
This community structure is a model to regulate interaction in a manner that expands the
ability to produce knowledge. This is part of what Alexander Galloway referred to as ‘protocol,’ “a technique for achieving voluntary regulation within a contingent environment.”12
I refer to it here with an eye toward this volunteer organization, which functions without
violent or tyrannical imposition, as it imposes its own protocological methods, regulating
the interactions of its constituency self-relexively. Galloway’s notion of protocol is speciic
here, as it “does not produce or casually effect objects, but rather is a structuring agent that
appears as the result of a set of object dispositions.”13 These “object dispositions” are of
concern here, as the environment is voluntarily regulated as a result of the choices made or
the inherent disposition of the objects or, as they can be called, members of that set. Similar
to the notion of hegemony, only the reversal of power – regulation spawns not from imposition of rule, but from the intentions of the members of the organization. Take driving to
work, on a road that is under construction, for example. You can either spend extra time and
effort (and possibly damage your car) or you can ind a different path to reach your goal.
Applying this model to the social experience of puzzle solving ends up with a set of interactions that inluence decision-making and possibility of choice in a given instance.
Lawrence Lessig points out that, contrary to his previous statements in Code, regulation
is often a hindrance in these types of communities, and can even be downright detrimental
11
David Lyon, The Electronic Eye: The Rise of Surveillance Society (Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press,
1994) 162
12
Alexander Galloway, Protocol: How Control Exists after Decentralization (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2006),
7.
13
Ibid, 74
24
ZACHARY MCDOWELL
to the evolution and success of community.14 However, this is a different notion of regulation
than of imposition. It is self-regulation that is implemented relexively, a product of the social
interactions and the current goals of the community. This “freedom-from-rule” is still freedom,
as it releases the members and the community from a tyrannical organizational structure.
However, all systems have structure, whether imposed externally or whether they arise organically within the community.
Team Codex takes a page from Wikipedia’s playbook in their lack of structure, but requires
a few simple rules. Additionally, like Wikipedia “its contributors are motivated not by money,
but by the fun or joy in what they do,” the members “ind that joy because the result is
something valuable”15 for the community. “These are volunteers doing as they like. It just
turns out that when you invite the world to participate, there are enough volunteers in a range
of categories of work to make the whole thing function quite well.”16 Lessig’s observations
about participation on Wikipedia mirror that of Team Codex, that this is something that
people want to do and all that is necessary is to help it happen.
There is a unique satisfaction on being part of something, whether it be cheering on the
team or being part of the team. Participants in larger groups can share in the successes and
feel responsible for the team.
I think, in a sense, it’s actually the ‘collaborative’ aspect that draws me in. I can actually
work with three or four different [groups] simultaneously on different puzzles, and it’s
always a thrill when someone gets that “aha” moment. Too, the “aha” is almost always
the result of some group brainstorming, where someone tries a particular tack, and
someone *else* recognizes a pattern that the irst person probably wouldn’t have seen.
I think the strength of Codex is that the setup allows people (“me,” in this case) to luidly
move from puzzle to puzzle, often multitasking on a couple cold puzzles and a couple
hot ones at the same time. (Wiki Response by Andrew Moskalik)
This participatory culture engages members to enjoy being part of something not necessarily
“bigger than them” but as something that they feel responsible for and included within. From
the open, protocological structuring of interactions that arise organically through member
participation, to the technological assistance in creating simple collaborative environments,
possibility opens for community to thrive and create within.
When the Technology Fades Away
There are many applications to these techniques for collaboration in a problem-solving environment, and the community membership is nearly limitless in the types of Knowledge
Communities that arise in this manner. Aside from the obvious engineering, systems processes, and programming environments, the methods employed by Team Codex to instigate
a fast-paced, highly participatory culture could also be helpful in emergency / crisis management. With the low learning curve, instant start-up, and online collaboration, this method of
14
Lawrence Lessig. Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy. (New York: Penguin Press,
2008), 281
15
Ibid, 162
16
Ibid, 159
25
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORT AND SOCIETY
problem-solving could easily be implemented for volunteer-based emergency / crisis management groups, allowing a high degree of lexibility and responsiveness.
The dynamic that Team Codex employs sets up the possibility of collective consciousness,
the system of the “better” in relation. Voices can be heard if they want to be, and consensus
is created through swift decisions while allowing for a new “better” at any time. However,
it is not the technology that creates this, it is merely a product of the interaction with the
technology. Social decision-making processes, as identiied earlier, are merely enhanced
through the application of technology – the possibility of Google Spreadsheets was within
the pen and paper, but magniied; the possibility of the wiki was within the chalk board, but
magniied. What occurs through the application is the production of something else other
than just the creation of knowledge, something that in turn helps to better produce that
knowledge. This production is a different type of production, a different type of labor, than
that of our world economy. However, it is still an economy that is in production, not only
that just of knowledge, but as Lévy puts it “that which can never be fully automated, on that
which is irreducible: the production of the social bond, the relational .”17
The production of the social bond is precisely Lévy’s point in Collective Intelligence, the
community that re-produces itself in the production of knowledge – not just a re-production,
but a re-invention, with a focus on the to come of the future and not just the future present.18
To put it in concrete terms for Team Codex, the community that tries to solve puzzles better
together, when focused on the creation of community, will solve puzzles better together, and
in solving puzzles better together, they will in turn create a better community, etcetera, to
ininity. This is the key to the knowledge community and the notion of community as a site
of continual growth, or what Giorgio Agamben calls a community to come.19
Agamben’s notion of the community to come closely mirrors that of Derrida’s avenir and
Lévy’s community of the future in that they attend to the possibility of multiple futures,
rather than a singular future. The possibility of futures arise from this community: it is its
direction. The rules, style of governance, or methods of organizing continuously emerge
from the members in pursuit of their collective goal, and protocols arise from structure
erected via participation within the community. There are multiple ways to solve puzzles,
and therefore, the choices these puzzlers make to organize toward puzzle solving form the
fabric of the community. With no singular way of solving puzzles, this community evolves
through the very presence of community; this community evolves through its action as
community. The formulation of this community (puzzle solving) is the action of the community (puzzle solving) that in turn re-informs the formation of the community. Rather than
merely self-emergent governance, this community is not only self-emergent but also selfevolving in its pursuit of community. As Lévy explains, the economy, the management of
this community’s ‘household’, centers on the “production of the social bond,” which becomes
the ultimate purpose of playing in, and participating in the Mystery Hunt.
17
Pierre Lévy, Collective Intelligence: Mankind’s Emerging World in Cyberspace. Translated by Robert Bononno,
(Cambridge: Perseus Books, 1999), 31
18
I do not have the original French edition that Pierre Lévy wrote, but I suspect the word here is avenir rather than
futur. The distinction is made clear in a few books, but most notably in Jacques Derrida’s Archive Fever that avenir
insinuates an openness toward possibility, rather than something expected. This distinction is similar to the notion
of the messianic, as the to come is only an orientation, and is never truly expected to arrive.
19
Giorgio Agamben, The Coming Community. Translated by Hardt Michael. (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press, 1993)
26
ZACHARY MCDOWELL
About the Author
Zachary McDowell
A Doctoral Student at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst in the Department of
Communication, Zach McDowell earned a BS and MA at Arizona State University, focusing
on Advocacy, Critical Theory, and Philosophy of Communication. His current focus is in
the area of advocacy, communication, and collaboration in a digital environment, especially
the issues surrounding the Open Source / Free Software Movement, Digital Rights Management, Peer to Peer Sharing, and (Intellectual) Property. A self-described nerd, he uses the
term with fondness amongst rising concerns over its use as a debasement.
27
EDITORS
Keith Gilbert, University of East London, UK.
Bill Cope, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA.
EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD
Mojca Doupona, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Mark Hargreaves, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, USA.
Jack Jedwab, Association for Canadian Studies, Montreal, Canada.
Sid Katz, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Richard Lichen, Beijing Sports University, Beijing, China.
Abdul Hafidz bin Haji Omar, University Technology Malaysia, Malaysia.
Otto J. Schantz, University of Koblenz, Landau, Germany.
Karin Volkwein-Caplan, West Chester University of Pennsylvania, West Chester, USA.
Rhodri Williams, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
www.SportAndSociety.com
THE UNIVERSITY PRESS JOURNALS
www.Arts-Journal.com
www.Book-Journal.com
www.Climate-Journal.com
www.ConstructedEnvironment.com
www.Design-Journal.com
www.Diversity-Journal.com
www.GlobalStudiesJournal.com
www.Humanities-Journal.com
www.OnTheImage.com
www.Learning-Journal.com
www.Management-Journal.com
www.Museum-Journal.com
www.ReligionInSociety.com
www.Science-Society.com
http://www.SocialSciences-Journal.com
www.SpacesAndFlows.com
www.SportAndSociety.com
www.Sustainability-Journal.com
www.Technology-Journal.com
www.ULJournal.com
www.Universities-Journal.com
FOR SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT
subscriptions@commongroundpublishing.com