Blogging through Wikipedia (2018)

Wells thought that the World Encyclopedia should be more than an information repository. The World Encyclopedia must bring together the opinions of various people to form a decision. I felt that the process should take time to vote, deliberate, and open. I thought this process would take some time.  Does Wikipedia meet the elements of these great encyclopedias he thinks?  Anyone can write and edit Wikipedia. This brings together the opinions of many people. I think what is important here is talk page. Through the talk page in the writing, people express their thoughts about it. It continues to be revised and complemented, which eventually leads to multiple people's opinions.  But I have never seen voting in Wikipedia. What if voting was introduced? I don't think it's too bad to introduce voting on Wikipedia as a trial. In the conclusion of this article, I contend. Wikipedia has to solve many conflicts in the real world. However, resolving the conflict is not easy. If you ...

1. Summary    Chapter 5 explains the "consensus" of Wikipedia. Most of the articles in Wikipedia are written by the consensus of users. In many words, there is the same word but a different homonym. For example, 'Prototype' means 'pre-made things' but also exists as 'game'. Wikipedia needs an agreement to distinguish these homonyms. It is necessary to eliminate ambiguity. So Wikipedia uses suffixes. Through the suffix, the ambiguity of the homonym is reduced.  The consensus is that 'users agree with each other'. It is difficult to reach consensus among a large number of users in Wikipedia. It is because of the characteristic of 'online'. Because Wikipedia can be used regardless of time and place, it is difficult to reach consensus at a fixed time or space. The importance of consensus among users is needed to find the best solution. The consensus among users constitutes consensus, and Wikipedia considers people's "opini...

1. Summary       In this chapter, the author talks about the consensus decision making at the Wikipedia and its meaning and practice for collaboration, and the difficulties of consensus in its decision making.   As the author says, the Wikipedia community is relatively tolerant of the ambiguities inherent to collaborating on a world encyclopedia and rather trusting of human judgment over the long run. In particular, its openness — the lack of topical and temporal scope, the initial lack of facilitation, and anonymity — brings a new salience to the challenges of consensus practice.   The articles in Wikipedia are accessed via other pages, including user-created categories and search engines. When article titles conflict, Wikipedia offers the reader a 'disambiguation link' at the top of an article or a whole page with a list of links to more specific articles, or both. As the author says, “Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving...

1. Summary The subject of this chapter is consensus. Consensus is the preferred method of making decisions at Wikipedia. Wikipedia operates on discussion-driven consensus, and can therefore be regarded as “not a democracy” since a vote might run counter to these ends. Wikipedia is a fascinating example of a historic method of community decision making in a new context.   2. Interesting Point However, the consensus covered in this chapter is a topic that is addressed more specifically. The author says that Wikipedia derives consensus through a method of discussion. Democratic means of achieving consensus include discussion and voting. But voting follows a number of outcomes, and discussions share one another's thoughts and opinions in a more progressive direction. Of course, it is difficult for everyone to agree with the result of the agreement. Moreover, people with anonymity in the limited space of the Internet are unlikely to approve. Wikipedia has little tro...

This chapter discusses the difficulties of consensus decision making and its implications and practice. I particularly noticed the ambiguity. Wikipedia articles are accessed through different pages, including user-created categories and search engines, asking what happens when an article title conflicts.   I think about the problem of consensus of disambiguation. The issue of ambiguity is a problem because Wikipedia is a platform where everyone can participate, unlike other encyclopedias on the Internet. If it is a dictionary operated by a general company like Naver, it will provide information in a consistent category that the public can not participate.  But if you do not use consistent suffixes, it's rather confusing. Information will be difficult to find, and discussions will not be done properly because of difficulty.  However, as in this article, not only does the ambiguity of the article, but also any agreement, quickly determine "yes" or "no", b...

1.Summary Consensus is a precondition for Wikipedia. The consensus is " Any group in an organization is the same as the young. " I am not just raising and storing information. People maintain and accumulate information because they have a social consensus on the information. Finding an agreement within Wikipedia is likely to be difficult. Everyone has different perspectives and interpretations, and they have subjective interpretations of the ethics of Wikipedia. So, if you think about the future, consensus among people within Wikipedia is important. Even if it takes a long time, finding common ground is the first priority. 2.Interesting Point In this chapter we talk about the disambiguation of Wikipedia, the link to documents. Break-up in Wikipedia is the process of resolving a conflict in the title of an article that occurs when a subject can be associated with more than one article. However, what is interesting is that it is also very subjective to have this connectio...

1.Summary  Chapter 5 explains Wikipedia's consensus. When there are several articles of the same title, Wikipedia needs a way to eliminate ambiguity. Wikipedia is a collaboration, so you need to discuss and trust each other. First, consensus about disambiguation is needed. If there is no distinction, it will cause confusion. To solve this, Wikipedia is expected to provide a more specific article on the link, or a list of both, and a "disambiguation" link on the top or entire page of the document. It was argued that the use of consistent suffixes for all items, as well as items of particular importance when providing such links.  Voting in an agreement on Wikipedia is not appropriate. Voting is available in the consensus process, and Wikipedia is considered non-democratic because it operates on discussion-based consultations. Voting is only about knowing people's approximate opinions, but it is not enough to draw a consensus. Wikipedia focuses on 'opinions' ...