W11. Discuss Reagle's Chapters 5, Cho jiwon

1.Summary
 Chapter 5 explains Wikipedia's consensus. When there are several articles of the same title, Wikipedia needs a way to eliminate ambiguity. Wikipedia is a collaboration, so you need to discuss and trust each other.
First, consensus about disambiguation is needed. If there is no distinction, it will cause confusion. To solve this, Wikipedia is expected to provide a more specific article on the link, or a list of both, and a "disambiguation" link on the top or entire page of the document. It was argued that the use of consistent suffixes for all items, as well as items of particular importance when providing such links.
 Voting in an agreement on Wikipedia is not appropriate. Voting is available in the consensus process, and Wikipedia is considered non-democratic because it operates on discussion-based consultations. Voting is only about knowing people's approximate opinions, but it is not enough to draw a consensus. Wikipedia focuses on 'opinions' rather than 'numbers'. It is not a good consensus if everything is determined by numbers.

2.Interesting point
It was interesting to learn new about the agreement of Wikipedia. Until then, I just did not write this article because I had just written my own articles. Particularly interesting about the voting in Wikipedia. It was interesting that the vote was a new voting method, not a vote in the existing democracy. It seems to be a new tutoring method that makes good use of the characteristic of internet space.

3.Discussion point
The most ideal result of consensus is to get the consent of all those involved. But this is impossible. Therefore, the consensus is reached that the most consensus is the next best thing. If so, what do you think is the opinion of those who do not agree with the agreement? What is the ideal consensus?

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