  Quality information can improve individual judgments but nonetheless fail to
make group decisions more accurate; if individuals choose to attend to the same
information in the same way, the predictive diversity that enables crowd wisdom
may be lost. Decision support systems, from business intelligence software to
public search engines, present individuals with decision aids -- discrete
presentations of relevant information, interpretative frames, or heuristics --
to enhance the quality and speed of decision making, but have the potential to
bias judgments through the selective presentation of information and
interpretative frames. We redescribe the wisdom of the crowd as often having
two decisions, the choice of decision aids and then the primary decision. We
then define \emph{metawisdom of the crowd} as any pattern by which the
collective choice of aids leads to higher crowd accuracy than randomized
assignment to the same aids, a comparison that accounts for the information
content of the aids. While choice is ultimately constrained by the setting, in
two experiments -- the prediction of inflation (N=947, pre-registered) and a
tightly controlled estimation game (N=1198) -- we find strong evidence of
metawisdom. It comes about through diverse errors arising through the use of
diverse aids, not through widespread use of the aids that induce the most
accurate estimates. Thus the microfoundations of crowd wisdom appear in the
first choice, suggesting crowd wisdom can be robust in information choice
problems. Given the implications for collective decision making, more research
on the nature and use of decision aids is needed.
