W11. blog topic: Discuss Reagle’s chapter 5 - Kim Byung Chan

1. Summary
 
 Chapter 5 explains the "consensus" of Wikipedia. Most of the articles in Wikipedia are written by the consensus of users. In many words, there is the same word but a different homonym. For example, 'Prototype' means 'pre-made things' but also exists as 'game'. Wikipedia needs an agreement to distinguish these homonyms. It is necessary to eliminate ambiguity. So Wikipedia uses suffixes. Through the suffix, the ambiguity of the homonym is reduced.
 The consensus is that 'users agree with each other'. It is difficult to reach consensus among a large number of users in Wikipedia. It is because of the characteristic of 'online'. Because Wikipedia can be used regardless of time and place, it is difficult to reach consensus at a fixed time or space. The importance of consensus among users is needed to find the best solution. The consensus among users constitutes consensus, and Wikipedia considers people's "opinions" important rather than voting. So, the 'vote', which only gives approximate figures, can be considered undemocratic. This 'consensus' can be replaced by another 'consensus' by a new contract.
 
2. Interesting Point
 
  I have never seen users vote for consensus while using Wikipedia. I am new to Wikipedia that there is a way to consensus. Wikipedia has the autopurification function of the article for Wikipedia's Fairness. It was also interesting that these things were also done through consensus. It was strange that the articles I have added or edited are part of this consensus.
 
3. Discussing
 
  I found that Wikipedia considers opinions rather than users' votes for an agreement. However, as mentioned in the article, it is very difficult to accommodate the opinions of so many users. We need to discuss whether these users' opinions reach a consensus and the process of moving them into the article is legitimate.

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