Discuss Reagle’s chapter 6

Benevolent Dictators

 The final decision-making authority depends on one person who is expected to use it wisely because of his personality and experience.

In general, a benevolent dictator does not actually make all decisions and most of them do not. A person cannot have sufficient expertise to consistently make good decisions in all areas of the project, and a quality developer will not be far around unless it affects the direction of the project. So benevolent dictators generally don't dictate much. Instead, they allow themselves to work through discussions and experiments whenever possible. 

Benevolent Dictators requires a number of characteristics. Above all, projects require well-trained sensitivity to their own influence, which in turn brings self-restraint. Do not express opinions and conclusions too clearly in the early stages of the debate, and do not let others feel as if they were clear. People should come up with free ideas and even think foolish ones. Of course,Benevolent Dictators  sometimes has to post silly ideas, so it needs the ability to recognize and recognize when bad decisions are made. This is a good developer, especially if she stays on a project for a long time. The difference, however, is that BD can be released from time to time to avoid long-term reliability damage. Developers with lower seniority rankings may not be safe, so BD should make written comments or counter-determination to admire how much weight their words carry, both technically and psychologically.

Comments

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