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

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



I think citizen online is important.
The world in which we live is able to communicate with various people without restriction of time and space by the development of technology.

Because they are socialized in different cultures, people have different opinions and thoughts. These differences can lead to misunderstandings and conflicts, but they can create a better society by combining different perspectives.

It is also good that anyone, not just those with a certain class and strength, can participate on the Internet.
If only a handful of people rule online, our society will not improve.

Everyone can communicate equally online and their rights are guaranteed. 
As online people are guaranteed their rights, they must be polite and obedient to others. Internet online has the same discipline and promise as the real world. But it seems that there are not enough regulations on the internet yet, I think that better institutions should be introduced to create a better citizen online internet space.

People are free to participate in Wikipedia. Also, no one can completely monopolize or own an article. No one has any special rights and they are equal. There, people can understand other people's thoughts and cultures

Comments

  1. shingieunJune 27, 2019 at 10:18 PM

    Sometimes when I play an online game called LOL, I think Internet citizenship is important.Anonymity, through its speciality, disparages and swears the other person. In fact, things that can't be done in offline situations happen online.Through this, I still think there is a lack of Internet citizenship and I think we need to be more conscious.

    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