W12 Discuss Reagle’s chapter 6 - Hyerim Won


Last week we discussed the settlement. If so, who is leading the agreement? In other words, who is the leader is the main issue of this chapter.
Like other open-content communities, Wikipedia is voluntary, with the exception of the Wikipedia Foundation staff. So it shows how Wikipedia can be understood as a form of "authoritative" leadership in which an outstanding dictatorship is exercised by a respected "author" in an open society. And this chapter tells the concept of leadership and discussions about Wales and Sanger, and finally discusses this type of leadership and value.



'Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, why are you discussing consensus and leadership issues?' It can be said that. Of course, if people are simply devoted to making encyclopedias, there should be no serious management behavior. But in fact, it was interesting from the beginning that Wikipedia was both community and encyclopedia projects. This is because consensus and leadership problems arise. It was also interesting that the Wales’ message encouraging people to vote generated a very lively discussion and media interest in openness, the meaning of consensus and his role. I think that this has become a way to enhance and complement the functionality of Wikipedia.

On the other hand, Wales is a central figure in Wikipedia. Can we ignore the influence of his editorial involvement? I think that objectivity should be strictly adhered to even if it is neutral, medium, and good faith. Of course, it is not limited to Wales, but it is necessary for all participants of Wikipedia. This is because the original writer of the article can gain authority. But Wales is distinguished from others by his reputation. I think it is appropriate to say, "And I try to represent all of the community's interests in the broad building of consensus as being better than gang warfare." If he try to be "central to the problem" to reach a consensus, will it stimulate lively debate on the issue and have a positive impact on society?

Comments

  1. Geonju LeeJune 9, 2018 at 1:28 AM

    I think the most important thing for Wikipedia's participants is neutrality. Judging articles based on their values and beliefs will be biased toward specific groups. However, are there many people who judge on the agreement of neutrality and participate in editing? I don't think so. How can we reduce the risk of this problem?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

W5. Can we trust Wikipedia? - Seron Kim

Wikipedia is a large site used by people all over the world. People get information through Wikipedia and edit article directly when needed. Through the action of collective intelligence, Wikipedia is becoming more and more developed and growing. Can we trust Wikipedia? I think "We can trust Wikipedia but we should not trust it unconditionally.“   Obviously Wikipedia is reliable. Wikipedia itself has an implicit framework for editing, and people follow it and use it. It is also possible to increase the trust of the article by leaving a source for the information, and to delete the edited information through a predetermined process. So there will be more and more reliable information in Wikipedia.   But you should not trust Wikipedia unconditionally. Because there may be misinformation in Wikipedia. Of course, there is a high possibility that it will be fixed through the deletion function of Wikipedia and the collective intelligence of people. But it will be a ...
Read more

W1. What do I know about Wikipedia and what do I want to learn about it? - Yong il, Seon.

We learned another idea, we want an easy explanation.          Many people used Wikipedia. Why people visited Wikipedia? I have much thought about the answer to this question. Everyone will be editor in Wikipedia. So, several people’s opinions can be confirmed on one issue. It is also an important characteristic of democracy. Democracy is the recognition of the other’s ideas. And already in France, there were ‘Tolerance’. It means that As I am right in my opinion, and so you are right in your opinion. I think Wikipedia is making ‘Tolerance idea’ work very well. So, you can not force your own ideas on Wikipedia. Depending on the situation, users may be students, teachers, or even completely different third parties. From these points of view, Wikipedia is the modern version of Greece’s Agora.            And it is not over. Always people want an easy expanation, the more complex the case. Wikipedia has a structured form...
Read more

W2. My first edits. Describe why you made them. - Seron Kim

I rarely had access to Wikipedia before this class. Because there is a service called 'Knowledge in' operated by Naver in Korea. I've been used to the 'Knowledge in' for a long time, so I've always used it if there's something I don't know. However, I got to know Wikipedia in this class. Wikipedia has a much larger volume of data than I thought, and it is being used by people all over the world. Also, anyone could edit information. I want to search and edit my favorite soccer information. So I decided to do the editing on my idols, Ko Jong-soo and Nadson.   What was interesting about editing was that although the Korean Wikipedia was detailed by the players who played in the Korean league, the English Wikipedia had little or no information. So I want to edit more. Because I want to add their information to English Wikipedia to let people around the world know.   Different countries have Wikipedia sites and the amount and quality of informati...
Read more