W11. Discuss Reagle's chapter 5 / posted by Sojeong Yeon

1. Summary

 

   In this chapter, the author talks about the consensus decision making at the Wikipedia and its meaning and practice for collaboration, and the difficulties of consensus in its decision making.

  As the author says, the Wikipedia community is relatively tolerant of the ambiguities inherent to collaborating on a world encyclopedia and rather trusting of human judgment over the long run. In particular, its openness — the lack of topical and temporal scope, the initial lack of facilitation, and anonymity — brings a new salience to the challenges of consensus practice.

  The articles in Wikipedia are accessed via other pages, including user-created categories and search engines. When article titles conflict, Wikipedia offers the reader a 'disambiguation link' at the top of an article or a whole page with a list of links to more specific articles, or both. As the author says, “Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts in article titles that occur when a single title could be associated with more than one article. The disambiguations are paths leading to different articles which could have the same title."

 

  On the other hand, as the policy states, 'Consensus' is Wikipedia’s fundamental model for editorial decision-making. Wikipedians are supposed to discuss and reason together, making use of verifiable sources and assuming good faith. To reach the consensus, there is the Arbitration Committee which is a panel of experienced users that exists to impose binding solutions to Wikipedia disputes that neither communal discussion, administrators nor mediation have been able to resolve.

  The computer scientist David Clark characterized IETF collaboration, saying “We reject the kings, presidents and voting. We believe in rough consensus and running code.” In this context, consensus is overwhelming agreement which does not mean unanimity. Wikipedia norms are unanimity and a lack of voting, participation of all people with ideas on the subject. As Wikipedia’s consensus policy notes, “Achieving consensus requires serious treatment of every group member’s considered opinion. The people who wish to take up some action should listen those who oppose it with an open mind, because they count on the fact that the ensuing debate will improve the consensus.” But there are no leaders.

  There are numerous methods for making group decisions. Among the methods, the consensus is not so much about quickly yielding a 'yes' or 'no,' but in arriving at the best possible solution. While the progress and the outcome of consensus are rarely assured, the focus is on the potential benefits of deliberation rather than the speed of the decision. The consensus certainly is an appropriate method for decision making at Wikipedia and in a community with egalitarian values and a culture of good faith. Furthermore, this form of decision making, consensus, has been central to online collaboration.

  Wikipedians frequently cite the aphorism that “Voting Is Evil.” Wikipedia operates on discussion-driven consensus. Some therefore advocate avoiding votes wherever possible. In general, only long-running disputes should be the subject of a poll. Even then, participants in the dispute should understand that the poll does not create a consensus. At best, it might reflect how close those involved are to one. The polling may be a part of the consensus process and it is often more likely to be the start of a discussion than it is to be the end of one.

 

2. Interesting thing

 

  The interesting thing is the part about “Voting Is Evil.” I agreed that "Consensus" is the preferred method of making decisions at Wikipedia. As the author says, consensus can be difficult but this has much merits. But, at first time I wonder what “Voting Is Evil” means. Now, I think it is related to “Rough” Consensus. In Wikipedia, consensus is overwhelming agreement but does not mean unanimity. In decision-making, unlike the method of voting or unanimity as result, the consensus is the method which is relatively more concerned with the process than the result.

 

3. Discussion question

 

   Is it not possible in Wikipedia to vote in a decision or pursue unanimity? First, there is a problem about setting the scope of the voter. Unanimity is also impossible. There are a lot of users with different cultures in Wikipedia. Is the unanimity just for the sake of purpose to match their opinions together? We have to acknowledge diversity and embrace differences but the unanimity is merely ignoring differences and making arbitrary decisions for results. I would like to hear the opinion of other students about this.