W11. Discuss Reagle's Chapters 5

1. Summary
Chapter 5 discusses "consensus." Consensus: Any group in agreement. Wikipedia is clearly not the only database to store information. So all the writings written in Wikipedia were written through consensus.

First, there is a need for consensus due to the confusion of homonyms. This is inevitably confusing when there is more than one document with exactly the same name. As a result, Wikipedia has agreed to provide users with a "homonym" link. However, in providing these links, there has been a claim to use consistent suffixes on all topics, not just those that are particularly important, and most people now use consistent suffixes to distinguish homonyms.

Also, due to the online nature of Wikipedia, it is very difficult to expect to reach consensus on a specific day or at a specific time. So it's not a good idea to invite users through email, or to vote on a particular day. In particular, voting performs well in a democratic society, but in Wikipedia it is different. Wikipedia simply does not decide everything with the 'number' of people. Wikipedia focuses on 'opinions' rather than 'numbers'. If everything is decided by 'number', it is not a good consensus.

The agreement in Wikipedia is slightly different from the consensus in the democratic society. In this article, "Wikipedia is a fascinating example of a historic method of community decision making in a new context," he says.

2. Interesting Point
In my previous experience with Wikipedia, I have not seen voting on Wikipedia. This article provides an excellent insight into how dangerous voting on the line can be. No matter how you vote online, you can not respect the opinions of people with different opinions about the subject of the poll. I think this is a good example of Wikipedia's online peculiarity.

3. Discussion Point
In conclusion, as we see in this article, we have to take a long time to find a consensus. But to find a good consensus, do not you think that the opinions of people who have been passionately involved from the beginning are ignored? What is your opinion?

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