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

<How important is it to be civil online on the Internet?>

  The word 'civil' includes the meaning of 'being polite and nice on the Internet.' Why would this became the one essential virtue on Internet? I guess it's because Internet is a small-but also could be globally big- society. 
  When we speak in the real world, we have such kinds of virtue, and not so surprisingly, most of us just think we should be polite and kind to others when speaking their opinions. It is called 'manner', and 'well socialized' when we bring it to face-to-face communication. I think it's not so different on the Internet, cause we 'communicate in a specific place with someone who has his own opinion.' also on the Internet. So maybe there is a word 'netiquette'. It's principle is same, so why do we act differently? We should behave the same. It Becomes more and more important because the accessibility increased globally, so the nationality, gender, ages, and cultural things are just so colorful. They might have different thoughts based from their environment. But are they wrong?-maybe some are psycho, just wanting to fight with some but usually- They are not. The chance of speaking mutual on Internet is increasing rapidly, and if you think they are different, you could talk about it with them. This basis should be held in 'manner', so I think being civil online on the Internet is really important these days.
  And I thought especially in Wikipedia, it would be really important to be civil. Because some have just different thoughts about some information, and being unkind to others, could make up a fight. And here's my discussion. Wikipedia have such rules for Wikipedia etiquette. Do you have a rule that you were impressed?-the reason might be delicateness, or some strictness, and so on.- 

Comments

  1. Kim ju hwan 김주환April 12, 2019 at 9:51 PM

    Thank you for reading Minhyun's comments. It was interesting that I shared the idea of Netiquette. When asked if there are any impressive rules, I would like to say the signature. There was a function to write comments on the talk page and sign them at the end. However, this function was not unique but a function that had an ID written on the back. It was interesting to see that without this, opinions would not go up, and to have a simple, small but large function.

    ReplyDelete
  2. mjphomeApril 12, 2019 at 11:00 PM

    Minhyun, thank you for writing a good article.
    I think the 'talk' page in Wikipedia is an example of etiquette.
    Isn't the 'talk' page, which is primarily used as a feedback to the user's modified or first-time writing, an expression of etiquette? We can modify the content without saying anything to the user. But polite Wikipedia users don't. They leave a message, ask what questions they have, and have a constant attitude of discussion. So they respect each other's opinions online and use the space while asking and discuss again and again.

    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