W11 blog topic: Discuss Reagle’s chapter 5 -Geonju Lee
1.Summary
Consensus is a precondition for Wikipedia. The consensus is " Any group in an organization is the same as the young. " I am not just raising and storing information. People maintain and accumulate information because they have a social consensus on the information. Finding an agreement within Wikipedia is likely to be difficult. Everyone has different perspectives and interpretations, and they have subjective interpretations of the ethics of Wikipedia. So, if you think about the future, consensus among people within Wikipedia is important. Even if it takes a long time, finding common ground is the first priority.
2.Interesting Point
In this chapter we talk about the disambiguation of Wikipedia, the link to documents. Break-up in Wikipedia is the process of resolving a conflict in the title of an article that occurs when a subject can be associated with more than one article. However, what is interesting is that it is also very subjective to have this connection. Different people have different criteria for judging association. Although they may be related in large categories, they may not fall under the category based on detailed criteria. Therefore, no matter how objective information you enter, people's subjectivity can not be compromised.
3. Disscussion Point
As mentioned above, Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, but it is too subjective. Although we agree that it is a good example of collective intelligence in cooperation and consensus, we can not completely rule out the intervention of the mainstream in the end. Can we pursue perfect objectivity in Wikipedia?
Consensus is a precondition for Wikipedia. The consensus is " Any group in an organization is the same as the young. " I am not just raising and storing information. People maintain and accumulate information because they have a social consensus on the information. Finding an agreement within Wikipedia is likely to be difficult. Everyone has different perspectives and interpretations, and they have subjective interpretations of the ethics of Wikipedia. So, if you think about the future, consensus among people within Wikipedia is important. Even if it takes a long time, finding common ground is the first priority.
2.Interesting Point
In this chapter we talk about the disambiguation of Wikipedia, the link to documents. Break-up in Wikipedia is the process of resolving a conflict in the title of an article that occurs when a subject can be associated with more than one article. However, what is interesting is that it is also very subjective to have this connection. Different people have different criteria for judging association. Although they may be related in large categories, they may not fall under the category based on detailed criteria. Therefore, no matter how objective information you enter, people's subjectivity can not be compromised.
3. Disscussion Point
As mentioned above, Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, but it is too subjective. Although we agree that it is a good example of collective intelligence in cooperation and consensus, we can not completely rule out the intervention of the mainstream in the end. Can we pursue perfect objectivity in Wikipedia?
I read your post well. The objectivity of Wikipedia seems to be guaranteed by its own strict censorship system. I think it is relatively objective, unlike media that we can write subjective thoughts like Naver cafe because we have to write articles and sources every time.
ReplyDelete