W5.1 The Challenges of Consensus / Kim Yoon(김윤)

Summary

This chapter deals with the difficulties and their implications of the decision-making process that people face while collaborating on Wikipedia. In the process of consensus, Wikipedia seeks participants, cooperation, egalitarianism, and the pursuit of solutions. This process of agreement is more difficult than expected. In order to reach an agreement, a small number of issues, such as the nature of the group and the time difference, must be considered together. Because of these, it is difficult to reach an agreement in Wikipedia. There are facilitators within each group, and one of the most important things they do is write an agreement. People must refrain from hate and attack in it, and facilitators must watch this process. Votes are also held on Wikipedia. When a poll is conducted, each individual must choose one of the options and express his or her position, which plays a role in facilitating and materializing the debate.
Humans find a way to solve difficulties in any situation. In Wikipedia, people try different ways to reach consensus in decision-making, and there are other debates within them.

Interesting

I thought the consensus process would be easy as long as users were active because Wikipedia is open and accessible. However, through this chapter, I newly learned that there are more things to consider than I thought, and that the decision process is not easy.

Discussion

What else is there that resembles the decision-making process in Wikipedia? What happens there?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

W10 : Can we think of some example of how Internet has changed our culture? / 박소민(SOMIN PARK)

 1. Summary  The Internet has changed our culture so much. First, through the Internet, we can meet people regardless of distance. People in each country communicated over the Internet and reduced the barriers to distance by creating relationships. Also, the Internet has let us stay away from books. When we want to find expertise, we can get it from Wikipedia or Google. Even information in books can be obtained through e-books, reducing access to libraries and paper books. 2. Interesting point Further to the above, our brains are gradually degenerating because we don't have to remember information. We are constantly interrupted by SNS notifications ringing on our phones when we do something, so our concentration and attention are being reduced. Furthermore, the ease of obtaining information online is causing our short-term memory to decline. 3. Discussion point I think the Internet has made it easy to sever a relationship with a person because we can meet another person simply...
Read more

W7: Review of Good Faith Collaboration / Suyoung Han

  Review of Good Faith Collaboration 1) Summary – Wikipedia from an ethnographic perspective: focusing on collaboration within the community Wikipedia, which is called the world's largest encyclopedia, is an open community and is becoming more and more solid with the participation of various people, conflict, and resolution. In this respect, Joseph M. Reagle Jr. attempted to explain the culture that takes place within Wikipedia. The book describes how Wikipedia was created and what it values. In particular, he described Wikipedia in a book from an ethnographic point of view, and focused on cooperation within the community. 2) Interesting Point – Wikipedia is simple, but not I realized that Wikipedia is not just a site made up of community activities, but rather a collaborative activity that is carried out concretely for the goal. Before I read the book, Wikipedia was an encyclopedia site that only gave me information (even I didn't trust the information), and I thought ...
Read more

w9: Its often said by teachers that “Wikipedia is a good place to start, but a bad place to finish” why? LiuXinlei

 Its often said by teachers that “Wikipedia is a good place to start, but a bad place to finish” why? In terms of the comprehensiveness of the content, we have to admit the advantages of Wikipedia. For example, Wikipedia is undoubtedly my first choice when I don't understand an event at all. It is convenient, fast and comprehensive, and I can spend the least time to understand the whole content of this fact as comprehensively and neutrally as possible. But in the process of in-depth learning, Wikipedia can only be used as an introductory content, because in learning we need to understand this fact as much as possible, and we need to understand the different views of scholars in different regions on the same event. There will be different theories. Some theories seem to be not neutral or even discriminatory or ethnographic at present (such as Marxism and Marxism in China), and it is not suitable for Wikipedia. Be shown. In short, Wikipedia has a very low threshold for users. It assu...
Read more