#6 How important is it to be civil online on the Internet?


In Wikipedia, the attribute civil is not to be ignored. When I saw Civil in the first article, the word 'etiquette' came to my mind. It occurred to me that respecting each other and courting each other online might be the etiquette that existed for a long time. 
Etiquette can be viewed online as an 'online consideration' made by users for each other. Acknowledging each other's differences and being polite without being This concept should of course apply to Wikipedia as well. If not, the spatial nature of sharing each other's knowledge will result in poor confidence in information and not information. If this continues, Wikipedia will end up in ruins. I think citizenship is quite important to prevent this.

Discussion
Is this an excessive measure if someone who doesn't keep his or her civil rights is to suspend an account, such as deportation, rather than simply censoring his or her writing? Or is it appropriate?

Comments

  1. 방민현 minhyunApril 12, 2019 at 8:23 AM

    Hi Ju-Hwan, it's a good article, I think. I also wrote about an etiquette on the Internet. Reminding me the word 'netiquette'. It was cool that you pointed out 'if this happens endlessly, Wikipedia would be ruined with useless, meaningless fights.' Truly feel the same way, and for the discussion I think it's a bit too much to deport someone with some issues, as democracy, but if the bad conversation happens continuously because of one person maybe it will be OK to give him a short account discontinuance.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Jina ParkApril 14, 2019 at 7:58 AM

    I think it is the right move to delete accounts that have committed repeated serious errors. If one person wants to get some benefits from civilization, he or she should be a civil. To raise the mature civic awareness, we have to follow moral conventions about online manners. The online community is a kind of society. So the law enforcement is necessary if the social maintenance of online cannot be preserved only by etiquette.

    - Jina Park / 박진아 -

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Discuss Reagle’s chapters 3-4

Discuss Reagle’s chapters 3-4 I read the Reagle's chapters 3-4. I find two opinion. One thing is how to collaborate people on Wikipedia. Other is how to make open community on Wikipedia. How to collaborate people on Wikipedia. In the case of the English Wikipedia, there is a collaborative culture that asks its participants to assume two postures: a stance of neutral point of view on matters of knowledge, and a stance of good faith toward one’s fellow contributors. I think that people know the mood that must keep the rule on Wikipedia. If Wikipedia's mood is light, people write the light writing. Other is how to make open community on Wikipedia. I remember the discussion that Why the Women is smaller that the men on Wikipedia. I've heard from others the reason that women don't use it much because the community isn't friendly to women. I think that we try to create Wikipedia to use all the people no matter that the sex. I think it's a process ...
Read more

Discuss Reagle's Chapter3-4

In  the Reagle  Chapter 3-4, the troll and the ignore rules were impressive.  Troll is the one who destroys teamwork and leads the team to ruin.  Trolls, which are negative characters, help develop Wikipedia. Wikipedia finds the wrong information generated by the troll. And the information is modified by others. In that process, it results in more information production. There is an outlaw, similar to a troll. The lawless ignores all regulations, including copyright and reference. Like Trolls, they help develop Wikipedia. They are free to edit because they are out of regulation. The free edited content is modified by others, including attaching references and deleting content that is caught in copyright issues. Wikipedia develops as it takes care of these types of people.
Read more

Discuss Reagle’s chapter 5

Discuss Reagle’s chapter 5 It is hard to understand this chapter. When I used the Wikipedia, I thought I don't need to group communication. Because the communication space is hidden, so I don't find it. I'm hard to find the communication space on Wikipedia. I think that the Wikipedia communication is not good at working in Korea. There are not many advisers on Korea Wikipedia. The Wiktionary definitions for consensus speak of “general agreement,” “without active opposition to the proposed course of action. I found it important for members to reach an agreement on Wikipedia. It's not an easy task, but I think it can produce a good results. So I think that's why Wikipedia exists. It can appear in a chat window, and go and talk to the other person's chat room. Perhaps it ends up as a personal versus personal matter, but I think that's also an agreement. If conversation does not take place, I don't think an agreement is reached either. Wiki...
Read more