W11. Discuss Reagle’s chapter 5 – Seron Kim

This article explains Wikipedia's consensus. According to this article, it provides a "homonym" link to eliminate ambiguity. And it is said to reduce confusion through suffixes. This is a process to resolve the conflict caused by the title of the article. That is to say, Wikipedia has a vast amount of information. And Wikipedia considers that people will discuss each other, use sources, and document a common consensus. In fact, many people use, edit, and interact with Wikipedia. In order to gather opinions from various people, and to synthesize and agree on them, Wikipedia discusses and finds consensus through voting.
 
But I have never seen a vote in Wikipedia. I think that midnight action and consensus were well done through collective intelligence and discussion. However, this is not a complete consensus in society because it is a consensus of Wikipedia users.
 
Do you think that the limited consensus among these Wikipedia users is correct and objective? It seems to be a problem we think about.

Comments

  1. It is perfectly natural that you deny a voting system that you have not experienced. I would not think that even if you, such a system finds a perfect consensus.

    Yongil. Seon

    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

W6. How important is it to be civil online on the Internet?-Ji Young An

W4. Discuss Reagle's Chapters 1-2 Yong il Seon