W7/Good Faith Collaboration/HARI KIM

 Good Faith Collaboration

Summary)

Reagle's Good Faith Collaboration is a book on Wikipedia and Wikipedia community topics. Cory Doctorow reviewed the book in a Boing Boing portal review that the compelling aspect of Wikipedia is not the encyclopedia itself, but it provides a compelling example of a cooperative culture that supports it. Paul Youngquist reviewed it as a book worth recommending to anyone interested in the history of information technology and a new type of collective organization. Wikipedia editors need to be able to collaborate, and a culture of patience, politeness, humor, etc. promotes collaboration. As such, this book consists of eight chapters, where you can learn the cooperative culture and history of Wikipedia.

New/Interesting things I learned)

At the heart of Wikipedia's collaboration was a neutral perspective and a well-meaning attitude.  This is because a complementary posture can reduce excessive conflict and lead cooperation from the community. However, collaboration itself could have been a provocative term for argument. This is because collaboration is not a clear concept of solution. However, it was interesting that the argument was not necessarily bad. Through argument, we can make critical and productive contributions.  Agreements or disagreements may arise in the process of collaboration in creating Wikipedia, but I learned the need to note that each is important. And I felt the importance of all of us having to participate in the process of collaboration.

Discussion Point)

"As people from a very different perspective work together on Wikipedia, discussions, including religious fundamentalists, secular humanists, conservatives and socialists, are likely to turn into fireworks," the WikiLove essay said. It is difficult to be completely neutral about what is important and what is acceptable on Wikipedia. Therefore, a collaborative culture is important and necessary. What are some ways to promote a positive culture of collaboration without excessive and unnecessary debate? Let's consider other than having a neutral view and a well-meaning view of fellow donors as mentioned above. What posture should we take to deal with Wikipedia? I want to hear your opinion.