[11] Discuss Reagle's Chapter 5

<Discuss Reagle's Chapter 5>

  The challenge of consensus. It was not so hard to catch what the chapter was going to speak about. As Wikipedia is an open community for all people and we can share our opinion rather it is not a major, naturally there exists an 'opinion diversity'. 
  And for that, people in Wikipedia respects the opinion and then they start to make an opinion consensus. It would be easy if we just use a one and only voting tool. But Wikipedia thinks it's not the right answer. For the consensus, the best way is 'communication'. People argue and write their thoughts by some communicate tools in Wikipedia, and they try to make a best way by consensus. The 'openness' of Wikipedia makes the communication harder, but people try to. Because it's worth for a new change or an wise defense. And this makes Wikipedia special with other open communities. Others just have simple comment functions usually, and when some conflict appears, operators simply delete the post or ban the user that made a trouble.
  We cannot say that Wikipedia's method is the best and most efficient way for an community decision making, but it is truly inspiring in a way of it. The oldest, but the most people way may make one of the best results. 

[Question] But how if Wikipedia didn't have communication tools? If the edits made previously is wrong or ambiguous, how should act for it? 

Comments

  1. KIM BYEORI 김벼리May 19, 2019 at 7:15 AM

    If Wikipedia had no communication tools, it would not have a communication field as it is now. Because Wikipedia now has communication tools, it can communicate with each other, modify information, and add new information. If people had posted the wrong message on Wikipedia in the absence of a communication field, the information would have been exposed to the unmodified people.

    Byeori Kim 김벼리

    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