W11. Discuss Reagle’s chapter 5 - Yeonju Heo

1. Summary

Chapter 5 explains the consensus in Wikipedia. When there are several articles of the same title, Wikipedia needs a way to eliminate ambiguity. Since Wikipedia is a collaborative work, we have to discuss and trust each other. When we eliminate ambiguity, there is a disagreement about whether there is consensus. What is the consensus here? This chapter describes the meaning and role of consensus on the Internet. Consensus does not mean unanimous. Agreements are theoretically very simple, but in reality they are not. The significance of agreement is in finding the best solution. The result is not guaranteed, but focuses on the potential benefits of deliberation rather than the speed of decision. At this time, silence is not a good thing. Silence does not mean consent unconditionally. Instead, it often indicates confusion or lack of interest. The facilitator plays an important role in consensus. It is the facilitator's part to decide if a rough consensus has been reached. If the consensus is not done properly in Wikipedia, "edit war" may happen, so be careful. Wikipedia prefers consensus on how to make a decision. Voting is one available in the consensus process, Wikipedia can be considered non-democratic because it operates in accordance with the agreement of the discussions centered. Voting is only about knowing people's approximate opinions, but it is not enough to draw consensus. Wikipedia is because many people use the space, it can not be regarded as no longer any agreement since the previous agreement the moment, may be removed and may be replaced by a new agreement.
 

2. Interesting points

The topic of Wikipedia's "consensus" itself was interesting. The article about 'Palgwatang' that I wrote was in the discussion for deletion. It was the food from the old document, but it did not fulfill the notability and the lack of data. Now I think it was a process of "consensus". People debated whether to keep the article or delete it. As mentioned in Chapter 5, I thought it was democratic, not just to vote 'Yes' or 'No', but to decide through discussion. I did not know, but by participating in the discussion, I was personally experiencing an agreement.
I also first learned about the Wikipedia 'the Arbitration Committee'. The Arbitration Committee is made up of skilled users. I have never seen their activities before, but it was interesting that they existed to resolve conflicts. Rather than what I think, I realized that the consensus in Wikipedia is a complex and important concept.
 

3. Discussion

What is the best way to reach consensus? The significance of the consensus was to find the best solution. What is the way to maximize the potential benefits of deliberation?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

W3. Why do you think people use Wikipedia? Why do others write for it? - Sun bo Sim

 Why do you think people use Wikipedia? Why do others write for it? 1. Summary It is quite natural that the main purpose people use Wikipedia is to get information. So I thought about why people choose Wikipedia for getting information. I think the first reason is the reliability of information in Wikipedia. We have many other sources of getting information. We can search for information scattered on the web through search tools such as Google or Naver. But we do not have the ability to ensure that such data are reliable. However, people prefer Wikipedia because it looks at its slogan " The Free Encyclopedia, " believing it may have the character of an encyclopedia. I also believe that Wikipedia's credibility is enhanced by the fact that its information is constantly being edited through the process of collective intelligence. 2. Interesting Point Most people use Wikipedia to get information. However, some people like to make new articles and give information s...
Read more

W5. Can we trust Wikipedia? Yun-Jin Kim

Then I want to ask. Can we trust News? I think Wikipedia is based on sources. Every time we edit on Wikipedia we need the sources. If we don’t put sources, the information we wrote would be deleted.   So I think asking ‘How can we trust Wikipedia’ is kind of similar to ‘How can we trust News’. I know there could be subjective opinion on Wikipedia. If the topic is unpopular, the public opinion doesn’t focus, there’s could be no feedback and that makes Wiki subjective. for this reason, we have to think before we choose the topic in Wiki. If the topic isn’t famous enough and have no sources, we should think this information isn’t sure enough. but if the topic has clear sources we can have a trust on that information. I think it is not important to ask, ‘is the Wikipedia trustful’. It is important to ask ‘is this information on Wikipedia has a exact source?’.
Read more

W6. How important is it to be civil online on the Internet?-Ji Young An

These days lots of controversial problems are rising. And because of those problems, people fight on the Internet. But I think most of problems happen because of a lack of civic attitudes. As I highlighted the discussion section of Wikipedia last post, talking together with having civic attitudes is very important point. On the Internet lots of people meet. And this means all of them has different thinking and experiences different cultures. So it is certain that everyone's opinion is different. But I think from this difference, the collective intelligence comes. So I think this difference is very important. But sadly, because of this difference some people fight, just arguing their opinion is one hundred percent right. This attitude is nothing good to our collective intelligence. To develop collective intelligence, people need the civic attitudes. Not just persisting stubbornly they should talk and listen, trying to understand other people. If they talk their opinion or thinking...
Read more