It qualifies in some respects, but also fails in many of the respects that are usually assumed when people talk about superintelligences. E.g. Nick Bostrom:
By a "superintelligence" we mean an intellect that is much smarter than the best human brains in practically every field, including scientific creativity, general wisdom and social skills. This definition leaves open how the superintelligence is implemented: it could be a digital computer, an ensemble of networked computers, cultured cortical tissue or what have you. It also leaves open whether the superintelligence is conscious and has subjective experiences.
Entities such as companies or the scientific community are not superintelligences according to this definition. Although they can perform a number of tasks of which no individual human is capable, they are not intellects and there are many fields in which they perform much worse than a human brain - for example, you can't have real-time conversation with "the scientific community".
Or me:
Bach (2010) argues that like AGIs, human organizations such as corporations, administrative and governmental bodies, churches and universities are intelligent agents that are more powerful than individual humans, and that the development of AGI would increase the power of organizations in a quantitative way but not cause a qualitative change.
Humans grouping into organizations are to some degree capable of taking advantage of increased parallel (but not serial) speed by adding more individuals. While organizations can institute guidelines such as peer review that help combat bias, working in an organization can introduce biases of its own, such as groupthink (Esser 1998). They cannot design new mental modules or benefit from any of the co-operative advantages digital minds may enjoy. Possibly their largest shortcoming is their reduced efficiency as the size of the organization grows and their general susceptibility to having their original goals hijacked by smaller interest groups within the organization (Olson 1965).
I get the point, but the last paragraph is kind of excessively reductive. It's simply untrue that the only advantage accrued by putting multiple minds to work on a problem is a "parallel" one. Experts complement one another's functions. The aggregation of optimization power can be extremely nonlinear.
Take a geologist, a geophysicist, and a petroleum engineer. Assume that they're all experienced experts. Together these three people stand a good chance of economically finding and producing some oil. Remove any one of the three and the odds of...
Serious question. No single human being can build a nuclear reactor, land on the moon or calculate pi to the billionth digit, but humanity can. Does it qualify?