W11 blog topic: Discuss Reagle’s chapter 5 - Hyerim Won

This chapter discusses the difficulties of consensus decision making and its implications and practice. I particularly noticed the ambiguity. Wikipedia articles are accessed through different pages, including user-created categories and search engines, asking what happens when an article title conflicts. 

 I think about the problem of consensus of disambiguation. The issue of ambiguity is a problem because Wikipedia is a platform where everyone can participate, unlike other encyclopedias on the Internet. If it is a dictionary operated by a general company like Naver, it will provide information in a consistent category that the public can not participate. 
But if you do not use consistent suffixes, it's rather confusing. Information will be difficult to find, and discussions will not be done properly because of difficulty. 
However, as in this article, not only does the ambiguity of the article, but also any agreement, quickly determine "yes" or "no", but the best solution. Since Wikipedia is made up of various members and groups, it is hard to reach a perfect consensus anyway. There is a conflict with a small number of groups. Therefore, it is necessary to examine the significance of the consensus and its meaningful role in the development of the Internet.

So what do you think the meaning and meaningful role of consensus in the development of the Internet is?

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