Blogging through Wikipedia (2018)

Wikipedia exist for 17 years now and it has been in these 17 years one of the most used platform to search information in the world. Wikipedia it is constantly evolving and people are more and more involved in it. Moreover Wikipedia is not only a free encyclopedia, it is also a community where people are sharing their knowledge, work and also discuss about some interesting topics. Nowadays we notice a rise of communities like that even if it’s not for encyclopedia, because we are living in a sharing economy where people love to share the information they have. So with these points I personally don’t think that it can disappear. But the thing is that even if Wikipedia it is a platform which follow the trend of sharing economy many people still think that it is not a reliable source for information so it is not really usefull. For example in France when we have presentations, essays or research to do, our professors don’t want any information which come from Wikipedia, and your wor

W13 blog topic: Can Wikipedia disappear? - MinSeung Sung 2016062706 It has been 10 years since Wikipedia was born. Wikipedia has 17 million documents already in place. They cover most of the topics of human knowledge. The only areas remaining are pop culture and current events. This fact alone is largely due to the future possibilities. However, there is a shortage of growth engines that could attract power users in the early stages. That is why we should try to attract this new growth engine. Existing editorial participants are becoming more conservative in site administration and are taking a suspicious and wary attitude toward the new volunteers ' participation in editing the favorite documents. I think this is what keeps Wikipedia from being new. This shows that about 25 percent of the edits that Wikipedia's intermittent contributors took part in were turned back into original pieces, while the edits written by active editors were translated to only 2 percent won. To so

There are concerns that Wikipedia is losing its momentum for growth. The biggest problem is the fact that the opportunity for new volunteers to participate in Wikipedia and create great content has long been very rare. For Wikipedia's English-speaking site, the number of regular contributors has declined from 54,000 in 2007 to 35,000 in 2010, which was the highest level. This is because 17 million documents already in place deal with most of the topics of human knowledge, and the remaining areas were more difficult to define in the early stages, only in mass culture and current events. If the old volunteers don't encourage the new players, it will lead to problems that could threaten future growth.

W12: Discuss Reagle’s chapter 6 - MinSeung Sung 2016062706 In Wikipedia, community cooperation is essential and consists of a central motto. But there is an ideal side to this. Therefore, the existence of a dictator is indispensable. However, Wikipedia's dictator has a slightly different meaning from other dictators. For example, Wikipedia's dictator is a benevolent dictator. Unlike other dictators, this dictator has an authoritative leadership. They lead to the dictatorship of the community, smoothly. Unlike other dictators, they do not act in bad faith, but rather try to stop them. These actions bring status and honor to Wikipedia's dictator. This is why it is necessary for Wikipedia's dictator to act carefully about responsibility and authority. It is also important to keep a good balance between them. I didn't know that Wikipedia was so community-specific as there was a dictator. But it turns out that the existence of a dictator in Wikipedia is also as vi

This article contains information about someone who represents the authority of Wikipedia. As I said in last week's article, Wikipedia pursues neutrality as much as possible and draws consensus through debate with as many people as necessary. However, people's opinions are different and there may not be consensus. Wikipedia then tries to solve the problem through the role and position of the leader. People who play this role are usually called benevolent dictators.   It is important to have someone who can solve the problem when it is not clear. However, according to this article, in Wikipedia, leaders have been arbitrarily solving their thoughts ignoring people's thoughts, philosophical differences, harmony of social reality, and cultural differences. The problem is solved, but is this correct?   I do not think so. A leader must think and act more important and cautiously about his or her authority and responsibility. It is necessary to solve the problem

1. Summary In this chapter, the author describes the founder's leadership in the Wikipedia community. The first part of the chapter, Bardar's second law, briefly describes how the author is demonstrating leadership in Wikipedia. “When a building is on fire, a leader will not survey everyone to see what the consensus is about a response. It is time for action.” This means that when an emergency or an important problem occurs, the coercive intervention of the founder is inevitable.  Next, the author shows how leadership is actually affecting Wikipedia. The writer describes the actions of Wales as "the authoritarian leadership", referring to the New Nazi incident in the act of Wikipedia, the founder of Wikipedia, as a last resort to act on fraudulent activities. It also emphasizes the importance of leadership by showing that these behaviors can affect the culture of the Wikipedia community.  The last shows the actions of Wikipedia's founders, shows their qualifi

Wikipedia is under the WikiMedia Foundation. The Wikimedia Foundation aims to collect, develop, and effectively spread educational content around the world. It is also a project to develop and maintain projects based on free work and wiki and to provide the entire contents of these projects to the public for free.  The Wikimedia Foundation has many board members under this goal. But I think it's actually being run by the founder, some operators and some users.  Wikipedia requires users to write under a series of forms when writing. Otherwise, the article is deleted or modified. I suspect that this system was created by some kind dictators. There is a question which comes to mind because of the word dictator. If most users oppose Wikipedia's system, can Wikipedia have new leaders, policies and goals?

Some interesting point of this chapter was that it is not only Wikipedia's concern. Similar to Wikipedia, there are so many kinds of open communities in the internet environment. In these days, Public opinion is significantly affected by these Internet communities including individuals comment which is supported by many people. In these communities also have the same beings like "dictator" called in this book. However, there are differences between Wikipedia and the communities and also they might differ from each other. I want to figure out what is the difference among them, and what makes them differ.

1. Summary Chapter 6 deals with the importance of leadership roles in Wikipedia. When discussing Wikipedia's growth, communities, openness, and cooperative culture can not be excluded, but most importantly, all of these could have been successfully created under the command of a benevolent dictator. As the benevolent or authoritative leader of Wikipedia, Rammy Sanger, the founder of Wikipedia, and Jimmy Wales are the leaders. They formed a team to build a company, have discussions, and open discussions on Wikipedia. 2. Interesting  The contradictory concept of a benevolent dictator itself seemed very interesting. It was also interesting to argue that their role was to lead the community smoothly, mediate internal disputes between good people, and stop people from acting with bad beliefs. 3. Discussion But is it OK to compare a benevolent dictator to a monarchy? I think there is some difficulty. Because I think the distribution of power is greater as Wikipedia grows

2012047790 박종훈 A benevolent dictator can actually exist in any group as well as Wikipedia. Such a benevolent dictator can appear at schools, companies, stores, clubs, and even social gatherings that we see around us. For example, a chairman or the head of a group is set, but in reality someone who leads the group may or may not be in the public eye. In other words, there is a person in any group who has the most influence. They want to go through with their opinions. Most dictators do not want to show themselves violent in the process. This is where a benevolent dictator is born. I think the characteristic of benevolent dictators is that they are actually very kind and nice on the outside and they like to solve everything within their influence. Even if organizations make important decisions, their influence is exercised no matter where they are. It seems certain that some people are playing that role in Wikipedia. In certain documents related to a particular topic, it seems ce

1. Summary Now, on the web platform, Wikipedia is open to everyone. People voluntarily participate in Wikipedia and voluntarily censor information, which is an indirect realization of democracy. People also need to compromise and respect each other in their communication to democracy. And Wikipedia shows the form of " authoritative " leadership. However, they continue to work to eliminate conflicts within Wikipedia, and try to coordinate their dialogue and realize democracy in a democratic way. 2. Interesting Point As I mentioned in my last assignment, it is impossible to exclude subjectivity from Wikipedia. There is no way for people to know if the information is objective or reliable even if they look up the information from official sources. Even if the information is objective, it is necessary to determine whether the criteria are applied equally to all. 3. discussion point What are the objective criteria that are equal to all? Also, what are the most basic condit

As we know by now, Wikipedia is a community that yearns to be open and egalitarian. However such things are not possible because of the downsides it would produce. To tackle this issue wikipedia has implemented the so called authorial leadership, when action is needed those who possess the power can take action. How are there chosen ? Simply base on their contribution and loyalty to wikipedia. This leadership is located in between meritocratic, autocratic, anarchic and democratic, for it mixes different aspect of the forms of authority quoted beforehand. The system can maintain itself as it does not allows any « gods » in the community, only hard workers that prove they’ve earned the title. But with the possibility to log in, and so, to identify yourself, those who largely contribute by editing build themselves a informal reputation and authority, thus become administrator. Acknowledged by everyone, they can mediate internal dispute, guide the community and defend wikipedia ideals

As we saw before, Wikipedia is a community with many different contributors from many countries and all over the world. One of the most important principle of this free and universal encyclopedia is the openness. Everyone can edit. But, like in every organization, Wikipedia needs to have an authority to work well, to control some contents and especially the discussions between members. On Wikipedia, there is the model of "benevolent dictatorship". At the beginning, the founders have the authority and were mediators. But the community grew up and now benevolent dictators are people who are able to control dispute and disagreements between Wikipedia users. They have a strong personality and a high involvement on edits and discussions. They are really active on Wikipedia. One interesting point for me is that Wikipedia is not an anarchy, not a democracy, not an aristocracy and not a monarchy. So, the authority should be defined in a different way, especially it is really impor

In this chapter saying how important leader is. Each team has a leader and followers. Good leader makes good team.   so does wikipedia is a teamwork, Wikipedia leader is Wikipedia founder Larry Sanger and Jimmy Wales. Of course there are some followers to help leaders behind; Admins, ArbCom, and the Board. These make a team, they corporate, discuss, debate in Wikipedia. The prominent leader of an open content community is sometimes characterized as a benevolent dictator. An informal benevolent dictator serves to gently guide the community, to mediate internal disputes between those of good faith, and to defend against those acting in bad faith. It was very interesting what Wales said, Wikipedia is not an anarchy, though it has anarchistic features, Wikipedia is not a democracy, though it has democratic features. Wikipedia is not an aristocracy, though it has aristocratic features. Wikipedia is not a monarchy, though it has monarchical features.

Dong-Joon, Yoo 1. Summary Open, civil, egalitarian, deliberative: these are some of the concepts encountered in the pursuit of a universal encyclopedia. In addition to these features, Wikipedia is characterized by leadership. Wikipedia has been shaped by authorial leadership. This chapter shows an “authorial” form of leadership whereby exceptional autocratic power is exercised by a respected “author” within an open content community. Wikipedia is an open content community that anyone can join. However, Wikipedia is not an anarchy, democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy. Because of the voluntary and meritocratic character of open content communities it is not surprising that leaders are expected to lead by example as their very leadership is founded upon exemplary behavior; leadership emerges through action rather than appointment. Two of the most influential people in the history of Wikipedia are cofounders Larry Sanger and Jimmy Wales. Jimmy Wales is referred to as

1. Summary   Understanding the collaborative community in Wikipedia is of the utmost importance. Wikipedia had to reconcile different personalities, philosophical differences, and external threats with social reality. But Wikipedia has been created by authoritarian leaders in spite of cooperative culture, egalitarian spirit, and openness. We can see in this chapter the role of the informal benevolent power. I was able to find that Wikipedia is a collaborative community and run by powerful people.   2. Interesting Point   What surprised me was that there was a dictator in Wikipedia. It was astonishing that there was a dictator in Wikipedia, a symbol of a collaborative and creative community. We have seen a lot in reality how influential people have influence on people. The dictator of Wikipedia seemed to be different from the dictator we know. However, since the dictator's risk has been seen historically, we must think about the danger.   3. Discus

1.summary Most communities (including Wikipedia) currently available on the Web are democratic and open to everyone. There is voluntary participation and autonomous censorship. This could be seen as true democracy. However, such exchanges and conversations in communities and Internet dictionaries should also consider whether they are democratic. In any community, even in a democratic place where it is run by participants, managers and leaders are necessary. This article tells us about Wikipedia's leadership. It is said that a " benevolent dictator " is necessary. A certain level of coordination is necessary to coordinate discourse and to add democracy in communication. Mercurial dictators do not have forced communication. It serves to mediate conflict and center weight in a democratic way. However, such arbitration may not work out well and there is a possibility that it may become a dictatorship. In Wikipedia's history, you can see how jimmy wales and sangers worked

Information Sociology 2014048595 JaeIg Lee (이재익) Summary  This week we covered the theme of the Benevolent Dictator. The Benevolent Dictator is a title granted to a small number of open source software developers. Many are project founders who can ultimately conclude when there is an argument within the community. It is said that this phrase was first used in 1995 to refer to Python founder Guido Van Rossum.  They are somehow similar to many of Wikipedia's contributors. They spend their time and effort at no cost and provide convenience to others. Many of Wikipedia's contributors also invest their time and effort at no cost.If the difference is different, they build and distribute their own worlds through their knowledge and design without consultation. In case of Python, it was designed to be user friendly. This includes the developers of Linux. A music program called 'LMMS' developed by Linux is also a product of Benevolent Dictator's contribution.

1. Summary    This chapter talks about the leadership of Wikipedia. In the open community Wikipedia, a respected author will have leadership. In open communities, such leadership is primarily owned by the founder of the community. It can be seen from Wikipedia that Larry Sanger and Jimmy Wales were the most influential people in Wikipedia. In addition, the initial author of the content as well as the community can become a leader.    Wikipedia considers egalitarianism to the administration. But that does not mean there is no leader. The biggest feature of Wikipedia is that most people browsing Wikipedia can edit it. People edit articles by following Wikipedia's policies. People who log in to the account can have their own user page. A well-respected log-in user will be able to exercise unofficial permissions. Skilled users can also act as administrators using additional functions. That does not mean they are given a tremendous amount of special authority. Administrators are

Last week we discussed the settlement. If so, who is leading the agreement? In other words, who is the leader is the main issue of this chapter. Like other open-content communities, Wikipedia is voluntary, with the exception of the Wikipedia Foundation staff. So it shows how Wikipedia can be understood as a form of "authoritative" leadership in which an outstanding dictatorship is exercised by a respected "author" in an open society. And this chapter tells the concept of leadership and discussions about Wales and Sanger, and finally discusses this type of leadership and value. 'Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, why are you discussing consensus and leadership issues?' It can be said that. Of course, if people are simply devoted to making encyclopedias, there should be no serious management behavior. But in fact, it was interesting from the beginning that Wikipedia was both community and encyclopedia projects. This is because consensus and leadership probl

W12. Discuss Reagle's chapter 6 Information sociology 2015048986 천병헌 1. Summary   This chapter is about the Benevolent Dictator.    Unlike the purity of a utopian dream, Wikipedians must reconcile their vision with the inescapable social reality of irritating personalities, philosophical differences, and external threats. Despite its good-faith collaborative culture, its egalitarian ethos, and its openness — or because of it — Wikipedia has been shaped by authorial leadership. An informal benevolent dictator serves to gently guide the community, to mediate internal disputes between those of good faith, and to defend against those acting in bad faith. At this point, he or she may achieve a significant amount of symbolic status within the community or even outside attention. However, when a person comes to be responsible for more than he or she can do by dint of will alone, new responsibilities and authority pull taut a tightrope that must be carefully walked before the

1.Summary Open, civil, egalitarian, and deliberative: these are some of the concepts that are encountered in pursuing universal encyclopedias. While it may seem abstractly simple, it becomes much less complex when it is used in community practice and discourse. For example, a perfectly "open" community can be confusing and endangering many people. Or consensus does not require unanimity, consensus may not be reached unanimously or otherwise. This chapter shows that this parallel arrangement can be understood as an "exclusive" form of leadership in which the dictatorship is exercised excellently by a respected "author" in an open community. What is needed is a "benevolent dictator." No matter how you open the community, you need someone to control the minimum dispute. They usually speak softly to people, relax with humor, and prevent articles or conflicts in the worst case. Two of the most influential figures in Wikipedia history are co-founders

1. Summary This chapter covers the " exclusive " form of leadership in which dictatorial power is exercised. Leaders often convince by persuasion and example, but they have accumulated charismatic authority from their strengths. A prominent leader has the unofficial character of a "benevolent dictator" and may sometimes act in dictatorial politics. The prominent leaders of the open content community are sometimes characterized as benevolent dictators. However, the leaders of autocratic actions exceeded their accumulated merit or charisma, sometimes referred to as "idiosyncrasy credits" or "reputation shares," risk their status and a forking of the community. Leaders who follow carefully and continue to make important contributions are given the title "dictator". Given the voluntary and capable nature of an open content community, it is not surprising that leadership is expected to exercise leadership based on exemplary behavior. Lead

       1. Summary      In this chapter, the author shows the authorial form of leadership within an open content community, the story of Wales and Sanger, and how the conceptions of its leadership and expectations for the community shaped its direction and culture. Finally, we can see how the community discusses this type of leadership and the values.   Despite its good-faith collaborative culture, egalitarian ethos, and its openness, Wikipedia has been shaped by authorial leadership. An informal 'benevolent dictator' serves to gently guide the community, to mediate internal disputes between those of good faith, and to defend against those acting in bad faith.   The leaders often convince by persuasion and example though they also retain charismatic authority accumulated from their merit. As Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) luminary Eric Raymond notes, leaders must be capable of operating with a “soft touch,” to “speak softly,” consult with peers, and “n

Summury The origin of the collaboration culture in Wikipedia depends on how much you depend on the role and status of the leader. Wikipedia has many other open communities and is not forceful. Many people participate without any compensation. The most influential people are Wales and Saint. Wales sees his leadership as central due to his vision of establishment, early activities, contributions to cooperative norms, and other ' relations with the powerful '. It's a great way to understand Wikipedia. Understanding of communities and cooperative cultures is the key. Despite its good working culture and openness, Wikipedia has been shaped by its authoritative leadership. Interesting Point Wikipedia. Accordingly, communities and rules were managed and developed. I felt Jimmy was not an ordinary person watching this. I think it's great how you think of it.Jimmy was initially one of his broad vision and supervision and led to his preferred management style. Show how thes

1. Summary Ideals and reality always conflict. We always dream of a world like utopia, but the real world never becomes utopia. The reason is that there are a lot of variables (personality, culture, social characteristics) that exist in reality. The same is true of a small world called Wikipedia. While Wikipedia has a clear, open, civilized, and equitable encyclopedia as its ideal, this value necessarily results in a dispute when many people are involved. What is needed for this is the 'benevolent dictator'. No matter how open the community, you need someone to control the minimum dispute. They usually speak softly to people, relax the mood through humor, and in the worst case lock out articles or disputes. Since Wikipedia was founded, Larry Sanger and Jimmy Wales are the most influential people. In a nutshell, Sanger was a strong executive, and Wales was a more mild executive. Sanger left Wikipedia, but in fact it does not make sense to say that either of them is better.

The article is about the person who represent the authority on Wikipedia. It deals with many “names” to define the authority as ‘Benevolent dictator” or “Constitutional monarchy”. Moreover it deal with the persons who has strong personality & involvement   on edits and discussions so they can be seen and they can put themselves as a “Chief editor”. In this article I found the sentence below really interesting & true :   “Wikipedia is not an anarchy, though it has anarchistic features. Wikipedia is not a democracy, though it has democratic features. Wikipedia is not an aristocracy, though it has aristocratic features. Wikipedia is not a monarchy, though it has monarchical features  » I found this sentence true because in every communities you need rules to make everything works just a society. This sentence makes me really think about a book I have read “ Democracy in America” of Alexis de Tocqueville who was saying that in democracy is a disguise dictatorship because

This Chapter is about consensus on different articles on Wikipedia, and how Wikipedia find a way to resolve the conflicts and to manage those you happens between the different people of the community. As we have read in the article, Wikipedia has found many ways to solve conflicts and to have a final decision on one article : you can vote or talk about the article; and Wikipedia has also found a way to distinguish different articles which has the same name. The point that I have found interesting is that even with all that ways to make consensus on a decision making for an article, Wikipedia has facilitators. For me it’s really important because we saw that some people can be really rude on Wikipedia while discussing about an article, so it’s really good to have a facilitator to make the discussion easier. But I wonder if some discussions and votes about some articles are neutral and objective. I explain myself : we know that on Wikipedia you can’t and you don’t have the righ

1.Summary In this chapter, the writer is about the consensus decisions that Wikipedia is pursuing. The process of agreeing to adopt the process of consensus, the definition of consensus, and how the process of consensus is actually taking place in Wikipedia.  First, the author discusses The Case of Disambiguation. The writer describes the consistency problem and demonstrates that it is representative of homonyms and solves them by using parentheses after additional links or words after homonyms. Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts in article titles that occur when a single title could be associated with more than one article. disambiguations are paths leading to different articles which could, in principle, have the same title.  The second refers to the concept of consensus. The Wiktionary definitions for consensus speak of “general agreement,” “without active opposition to the proposed course of action.” It also said that this does not mean unanimity

1. Summary   This chapter discusses the difficulties of consensus decision making and decision making at Wikipedia.  In Wikipedia, consensus is an appropriate way to make decisions in the community. This approach provides a solution to the controversy that wiki administrators or debaters can not resolve.  Consensus does not mean unanimity. In order to reach agreement, it is important to respect the opinions of the members. In order to reach an appropriate consensus, we must listen to the opinions of various people. Whether it is the opposite or the pros, it should have an open mind. 2. Interesting point   Various discussions are taking place in various communities as well as in Wikipedia. People have their own opinions. And some people debate with various sources to support their opinions. There may be some disputes in this process. In particular, the best way to resolve conflicts online is to resolve them democratically. The methods include voting, consensus, and consideration. B

1. Summary We can find Wikipedia's sense of responsibility through reading material. In the case of print media, the issue of copyright is clearly visible. But the problem with online is a little different. Unless you have written your real name, you do not have to point out or question someone's ambiguity. Wikipedia has certainly been at this point. I do not know whether I had created an arbitration committee because I knew there would be a problem, or if I had an arbitration committee when a problem arises. As a result, an important fact is that arbitration committees have been created and they solve ambiguities by doing their jobs.   2. Interesting point However, it is not always encouraging that any group or group is born. Even though the group was born to do good work. Organizations that were born for good purposes may lose their initial purpose over time and may even turn away. For example, it is not possible to exclude the possibility that a person who belongs

Wikipedia's information is a product of collective intelligence. Therefore, the information may not be accurate. To solve this, Wikipedia has several devices. What we know before this article is the reference and link function of Wikipedia. This will give credibility to uncertain information due to group intelligence. In addition, in this article, we were able to find out about the device of full agreement. Increase accuracy in articles through agreement on ambiguous information.    I did a lot of Wikipedia editing, but I was not familiar with the function of consensus. This made this article interesting. Without agreement on information, the article would be merely an individual opinion. Then the Wikipedia article is reduced to personal statement, not information that others can refer to. However, it is very difficult for many to agree on any information or opinion and impossible for everyone to agree. In this regard, a system was prepared to reach an agreement by introduc

This article explains Wikipedia's consensus. According to this article, it provides a "homonym" link to eliminate ambiguity. And it is said to reduce confusion through suffixes. This is a process to resolve the conflict caused by the title of the article. That is to say, Wikipedia has a vast amount of information. And Wikipedia considers that people will discuss each other, use sources, and document a common consensus. In fact, many people use, edit, and interact with Wikipedia. In order to gather opinions from various people, and to synthesize and agree on them, Wikipedia discusses and finds consensus through voting.   But I have never seen a vote in Wikipedia. I think that midnight action and consensus were well done through collective intelligence and discussion. However, this is not a complete consensus in society because it is a consensus of Wikipedia users.   Do you think that the limited consensus among these Wikipedia users is correct and objectiv

1. Summary   To be more than just encyclopedia, Wikipedia have to be an adjustment institution. It means, Wikipedia’s is endless process to consensus. As our world is constructed, Wikipedia is also have many problems which people have argued. In many issues such as religion, history, war, and so on, two different positions fight endless as long as they don’t have any adjustment device (or mediator). Chapter 5 admits a difficulty of consensus decision making in Wikipedia(or any place.) because issues include political, cultural, and racial problems. So, Wikipedia needs a process to public ‘consensus.’ In this point, progressed technology (like internet) is important to approach this consensus. Technology can help we overcome limitation of time, place, and so on. Of course, consensus is not a spilt-second decision making so Wikipedia has some regulations to reach an agreement. However, the most important thing is that Wikipedia can become a place where we can check some insight o

W11. Discuss Reagle's Chapter 5 Information Sociology 2014048595 JaeIg Lee (이재익) Summary This chapter describes Wikipedia's consensus. The issue of whether documents should be separated or combined is determined by debate, not vote. Wikipedia is basically a debating consensus. I think the way of voting can be undemocratically altered. Rather than thinking and doing things, I thought it might be possible to distribute links to certain communities and encourage false voting. Tap on the keyboard is probably more troublesome than using the Internet and clicking on it. Therefore, the debate will be able to reach a more mature consensus. The agreement by debate is very important on the wiki. It is an important feature that holds both the neutrality, the integrity and the direction of Wikipedia. I think this orientation is creating and developing Wikipedia today. Interesting point Voting is an important function in the realization of real democracy. However, it does n

Jong Hoon Park 박종훈 Consensus is always difficult. It is not easy for different people to come up with a consensus. There are more than 6 billion people in the world and we can connect them with the Internet more easily than we think by means. In fact, it's not easy to find my own opinion on a matter of fact, and even in the details, no one will agree with me. It seems the same applies to creating encyclopedias. When creating an encyclopedia, each person has a different set of ideas about how to do it, what kind of information to do, how to classify it, and how to reflect all the controversial information. I think Wikipedia should handle this in that respect. In fact, a Wikipedia system that can be edited by anyone and deleted by everyone can be dangerous. But the system that made history remain and clear visible to everyone is great. In the end, information that wins the battle of collective intelligence will survive. I think this is basically the key. Although there is

This article tackles the issue of the difficulty to obtain consensus when reaching the point of decision making. We know that Wikipedia leaves many freedom to its users including the naming, editing and creation of the pages. However some conflict can arise, some of the solution are the following disambigation links, the talk page, and nominating the article to deletion/ renaming. A discussion engage, a consensus is reached when the majority agree on it. When the case is difficult and there is no obvious majority someone from the arbitration committee is appointed to assist and ultimately lead the discussion to a favorable ending. However determining when a consensus is reached is quite hard, that’s why wikipedia’s decision are usually not made by polling (which depends on who shows up on what day) but based on a system of good reason. Consensus is a hard word to define, it is really interesting in the conclusion, consensus is defined as « one of the three states that can be