W6 Discuss Reagle's chapter6 -Tae joon Yoo
1.summary
Most communities (including Wikipedia) currently available on the Web are democratic and open to everyone. There is voluntary participation and autonomous censorship. This could be seen as true democracy. However, such exchanges and conversations in communities and Internet dictionaries should also consider whether they are democratic. In any community, even in a democratic place where it is run by participants, managers and leaders are necessary. This article tells us about Wikipedia's leadership. It is said that a " benevolent dictator " is necessary. A certain level of coordination is necessary to coordinate discourse and to add democracy in communication. Mercurial dictators do not have forced communication. It serves to mediate conflict and center weight in a democratic way. However, such arbitration may not work out well and there is a possibility that it may become a dictatorship. In Wikipedia's history, you can see how jimmy wales and sangers worked. The two operate Wikipedia's mediation in different ways. It was run in two ways, one that could be quite dictatorial and the other that could be benevolent. Even today, Wikipedia operators and managers seem to adopt and follow a benevolent dictator. However, there has been a lot of controversy and protest over the continued use of such methods.
2.Interesting points
The idea of reading this article began with the paradox of the word benevolent dictator. Is a benevolent dictator possible? If it is merciful, can it be called a dictator? Wouldn't that be a true democracy if there were any intervention in the democratic way? There was a question about Becoming a dictator is not difficult. When communicating, it is a dictator if he or she only delivers unilateral information without bilateral communication. Devices need to be able to control the power of managers. No matter how much arbitration and management is needed, if we don't keep a balance, democracy will disappear.
3.Discussion point
How can it be possible to maintain balance between leader and participants? In open community if the balance falls down, can it be called civic and open community?
Most communities (including Wikipedia) currently available on the Web are democratic and open to everyone. There is voluntary participation and autonomous censorship. This could be seen as true democracy. However, such exchanges and conversations in communities and Internet dictionaries should also consider whether they are democratic. In any community, even in a democratic place where it is run by participants, managers and leaders are necessary. This article tells us about Wikipedia's leadership. It is said that a " benevolent dictator " is necessary. A certain level of coordination is necessary to coordinate discourse and to add democracy in communication. Mercurial dictators do not have forced communication. It serves to mediate conflict and center weight in a democratic way. However, such arbitration may not work out well and there is a possibility that it may become a dictatorship. In Wikipedia's history, you can see how jimmy wales and sangers worked. The two operate Wikipedia's mediation in different ways. It was run in two ways, one that could be quite dictatorial and the other that could be benevolent. Even today, Wikipedia operators and managers seem to adopt and follow a benevolent dictator. However, there has been a lot of controversy and protest over the continued use of such methods.
2.Interesting points
The idea of reading this article began with the paradox of the word benevolent dictator. Is a benevolent dictator possible? If it is merciful, can it be called a dictator? Wouldn't that be a true democracy if there were any intervention in the democratic way? There was a question about Becoming a dictator is not difficult. When communicating, it is a dictator if he or she only delivers unilateral information without bilateral communication. Devices need to be able to control the power of managers. No matter how much arbitration and management is needed, if we don't keep a balance, democracy will disappear.
3.Discussion point
How can it be possible to maintain balance between leader and participants? In open community if the balance falls down, can it be called civic and open community?
Comments
Post a Comment