W12. Discuss Reagle's Chapters 6
1. Summary
Ideals and reality always conflict. We always dream of a world like utopia, but the real world never becomes utopia. The reason is that there are a lot of variables (personality, culture, social characteristics) that exist in reality. The same is true of a small world called Wikipedia. While Wikipedia has a clear, open, civilized, and equitable encyclopedia as its ideal, this value necessarily results in a dispute when many people are involved.
What is needed for this is the 'benevolent dictator'. No matter how open the community, you need someone to control the minimum dispute. They usually speak softly to people, relax the mood through humor, and in the worst case lock out articles or disputes.
Since Wikipedia was founded, Larry Sanger and Jimmy Wales are the most influential people. In a nutshell, Sanger was a strong executive, and Wales was a more mild executive. Sanger left Wikipedia, but in fact it does not make sense to say that either of them is better. From a current point of view, both are just other ways of expressing intent to make Wikipedia better.
Of course the reigns of the most mild manner of Wales have had more influence. The way Patience, Civility, Humility, and willingness to apologize, which he used, is a virtue that can be found in today's administrators. The 'culture of goodwill' he asserted must be a culture that is still valid.
Now, beyond Wales, several administrators, Arbcom, and the Board of Directors are acting as the managers of Wikipedia. There is still much debate as to whether the model of "benevolent dictatorship" is appropriate, and whether the role of constitutional monarchy is appropriate. But obviously, when someone has more responsibility and authority than others, you have to pay more attention.
2. Interesting Point
No matter what community is created, dictators are essential. There is no way to resolve disputes in communities where dictators do not exist. What is also interesting is that you have the freedom to do it, you do not want to do it, I was able to reconsider how difficult it is to find a balance between human psychology, human values, and values that the community pursues.
3. Discussion Point
I have a question as to whether a benevolent dictator is valid. For example, no matter how gentle the dictator may be, we can see only Text, not his sincere voice. Text is necessarily inevitably hard, and it is difficult to grasp the meaning that a dictator wants to say, particularly when he sees a language other than his own. This is an inevitable phenomenon from cultural differences, rather than dictatorship. So what should we do? Should people use Wikipedia only in their own language? What is your opinion?
Ideals and reality always conflict. We always dream of a world like utopia, but the real world never becomes utopia. The reason is that there are a lot of variables (personality, culture, social characteristics) that exist in reality. The same is true of a small world called Wikipedia. While Wikipedia has a clear, open, civilized, and equitable encyclopedia as its ideal, this value necessarily results in a dispute when many people are involved.
What is needed for this is the 'benevolent dictator'. No matter how open the community, you need someone to control the minimum dispute. They usually speak softly to people, relax the mood through humor, and in the worst case lock out articles or disputes.
Since Wikipedia was founded, Larry Sanger and Jimmy Wales are the most influential people. In a nutshell, Sanger was a strong executive, and Wales was a more mild executive. Sanger left Wikipedia, but in fact it does not make sense to say that either of them is better. From a current point of view, both are just other ways of expressing intent to make Wikipedia better.
Of course the reigns of the most mild manner of Wales have had more influence. The way Patience, Civility, Humility, and willingness to apologize, which he used, is a virtue that can be found in today's administrators. The 'culture of goodwill' he asserted must be a culture that is still valid.
Now, beyond Wales, several administrators, Arbcom, and the Board of Directors are acting as the managers of Wikipedia. There is still much debate as to whether the model of "benevolent dictatorship" is appropriate, and whether the role of constitutional monarchy is appropriate. But obviously, when someone has more responsibility and authority than others, you have to pay more attention.
2. Interesting Point
No matter what community is created, dictators are essential. There is no way to resolve disputes in communities where dictators do not exist. What is also interesting is that you have the freedom to do it, you do not want to do it, I was able to reconsider how difficult it is to find a balance between human psychology, human values, and values that the community pursues.
3. Discussion Point
I have a question as to whether a benevolent dictator is valid. For example, no matter how gentle the dictator may be, we can see only Text, not his sincere voice. Text is necessarily inevitably hard, and it is difficult to grasp the meaning that a dictator wants to say, particularly when he sees a language other than his own. This is an inevitable phenomenon from cultural differences, rather than dictatorship. So what should we do? Should people use Wikipedia only in their own language? What is your opinion?
I think that benevolent dictatorship is different from dictatorship. There may be differences depending on that, but we are aware of the need for dictatorship to some extent. I agree with the difficulty of synthesizing opinions. In that context, I think that benevolent dictatorship will help the solution.
ReplyDeleteI would like to add my comments to your interesting points. I think a dictator has to emerge in an open space like Wikipedia today. A dictator is one of the members of an open space. Their role is to mediate in the process of agreement, teach manners and respect. However, it is difficult to decide how far a dictator's authority is allowed because it is not forced in an open space. It is very important to find a balance between the dictator and the rest of the people and the values of the community. As a result, it takes the active attitude of people to balance a society. We should try to recognize other cultures, politics, and so on.
ReplyDeleteI think your opinion that people's positive attitude is important is worth it. Nevertheless, there are many cases where the majority of people do not actively deal with certain issues. It is really a sad point. :(
DeleteI want to discuss about dictatorship of communication. Becoming a dictator is not difficult. If there is no two-way communication and only unilateral communication of information is made, it can be regarded as dictatorship. Communication is very important everywhere. Communication should be a prerequisite even if management is necessary, and if communication is absent, I think it is a dictatorship.
ReplyDeleteI saw your opinion that communication is important. However, as I said in the Discussion Point, in order to communicate positively in Wikipedia, intent is transmitted only in text, not in voice. How do we resolve this?
Delete