W11. Discuss Reagle’s chapter 5 - ChaeHyeon Lee

1. Summary
H. G. Wells thought the “World Encyclopedia” should be more than an information repository, it should also be an institution of “adjustment and adjudication; a clearinghouse of misunderstandings.” This chapter is about the difficulties of consensus decision making and its meaning and practice. Consensus is the preferred method of decision making in Wikipedia. According to the consensus policy, the consensus on how editors work with others, is for editorial decision making. Wikipedia discusses and inferences with each other and uses provable sources. Policies and guidelines document a common consensus rather than creating it.
The Wiktionary definition of consensus does not actively oppose the proposed action but speaks of a general agreement. The agreement does not mean "unanimous" as an overwhelming consensus. Consensus decisions are comprehensive, participatory, cooperative, egalitarian, and solution-oriented. The consensus seems to be an appropriate means for decision making in a community of egalitarian values and goodwill culture. This decision-making process has also been at the heart of online collaboration since the Internet began. However, the consensus may seem quite simple in theory, but it is rarely enforced.
The consensus is not to produce "yes" or "no" quickly, but to find the best solution. The progress and outcome of the agreement is hardly guaranteed, but it focuses on the potential benefits of deliberation rather than the speed of decision. Since Wikipedia is operated on a discussion-based consensus, voting can be considered "non-democratic" since a vote might run counter to these ends. Given the preference for consensus on good assumptions and decision-making, the Wikipedia community can conclude that it is relatively tolerant of the ambiguity inherent in the co-operation of the world's encyclopedia and the long-term confidence of human judgment. The Openness brings a new salience to the challenges of consensus practice.
 
2. Interesting things
I was interested in the Arbitration Committee. The Arbitration Committee consists of experienced user panels of experienced users that exists to impose binding solutions to Wikipedia disputes that neither communal discussion, administrators, nor mediation have been able to resolve. I have not seen a passionate discussion on Wikipedia yet, but some articles are controversial. The articles become the subject of discussion, and many editors discuss the article. It would be nice if the debate could resolve the direction and content of the article, but it is often not resolved if the article is biased or provocative. So, I think Wikipedia would be even better if the Arbitration Committee panel came up with a solution in that case.
 
3. Discussion
Wikipedia is solution-oriented. Everyone will try to resolve in a positive way. But if they are not unanimous in the debate, there will have problems. A small number of opinions are omitted or there are disagreements in the process. Can voting be a good solution in this agreement process? What about voting for each opinion that is not yes / no?

Comments

  1. 허연주(Yeonju Heo)May 18, 2018 at 10:32 PM

    Voting for each opinion seems to be a good way. A majority opinion are not necessarily the best opinion, but because Wikipedia is used by so many people, it is difficult to review every opinion. Therefore, Voting for each opinion can be the best way to represent the interests of the most people.

    ReplyDelete
  2. manglowoMay 19, 2018 at 2:07 AM

    I thought about that question. I think it is not possible in Wikipedia to vote in a decision and is not a good method. First, there is a problem about setting the scope of the voter. And the limited choice in voting also become a problem. There are a lot of users with different cultures in Wikipedia. We have to acknowledge diversity and embrace differences but that is relatively ignoring differences and process of decision-making.

    ReplyDelete
  3. 안지영June 8, 2018 at 3:09 AM

    Voting is not a bad method to solve the problem but also it is not the best way to solve the problem. Because Wikipedia is very big community, voting looks like easy and simple way to make a conclusion. But to keep the purpose of Wikipedia, being neutral, I think voting is not a good way to solve the problem.

    ReplyDelete

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