  A long-standing debate is whether social influence improves the collective
wisdom of a crowd or undermines it. This paper addresses this question based on
a naive learning setting in influence systems theory: in our models individuals
evolve their estimates of an unknown truth according to the weighted-average
opinion dynamics. A formal mathematization is provided with rigorous
theoretical analysis. We obtain various conditions for improving, optimizing
and undermining the crowd accuracy, respectively. We prove that if the wisdom
of finite-size group is improved, then the collective estimate converges to the
truth as group size increases, provided individuals' variances are finite. We
show that whether social influence improves or undermines the wisdom is
determined by the social power allocation of the influence system: if the
influence system allocates relatively larger social power to relatively more
accurate individuals, it improves the wisdom; on the contrary, if the influence
system assigns less social power to more accurate individuals, it undermines
the wisdom. At a population level, individuals' susceptibilities to
interpersonal influence and network centralities are both crucial. To improve
the wisdom, more accurate individuals should be less susceptible and have
larger network centralities. Particularly, in democratic influence networks, if
relatively more accurate individuals are relatively less susceptible, the
wisdom is improved; if more accurate individuals are more susceptible, the
wisdom is undermined, which is consistent with the reported empirical evidence.
Our investigation provides a theoretical framework for understanding the role
social influence plays in the emergence of collective wisdom.
