Week 13 - Review about The Challenges of Consensus (Chaebin Park 박채빈)



1. Summarize in your own words the materials that you read


This week, I revisited Chapter 5, ‘The Challenges of Consensus’, from ‘Good Faith Collaboration’. This chapter explores how "consensus" functions within the Wikipedia community, especially when editors from diverse cultural and philosophical backgrounds collaborate. The book emphasizes that consensus is not simply unanimous agreement but rather a flexible and often complex process involving negotiation, compromise, and procedural tools. By comparing different systems such as the Quakers and the open-source software communities, the author illustrates how Wikipedia has adopted and adapted these principles in its unique way.


The Quakers, a Christian denomination founded by George Fox in England, value peace, equality, and inner truth. Their meetings aim for unanimous consensus, prioritize silence to encourage deep reflection, and operate under a non-hierarchical structure where a facilitator, rather than a leader, guides the meeting. In contrast, open-source communities also value consensus but take a very different approach. Their core principles are "rough consensus" and "running code." In this model, action is taken when a majority agrees, not necessarily everyone. Functionality takes precedence over theory, and iterative experimentation and revision are encouraged. Reagle explains that while Wikipedia initially drew inspiration from open-source practices, it gradually evolved to resemble the Quaker model of consensus, placing more emphasis on persuasion and agreement due to the importance of neutrality and trustworthiness in its content.





2. Mention any new, interesting, or unusual items that you learned through the lecture


One of the most interesting concepts I learned was "disambiguation." For example, a title like "Buffy" could refer to many different topics. To help users find the exact content they are looking for, Wikipedia provides disambiguation pages that sort and clarify multiple possible meanings. I also found it surprising that Wikipedia originally tried to apply the open-source principle of "rough consensus and running code." However, this approach proved less suitable for a platform like Wikipedia, which deals with factual accuracy and neutrality rather than software functionality. Lastly, I was impressed by how Wikipedia’s form of consensus isn’t solely governed by rules, but is a cultural practice shaped collectively by contributors from around the world.





3. Identify at least one question, concern, or discussion angle that is either problematic in some respect or could have been elaborated more


One question that came to mind while reading was whether consensus on Wikipedia can remain stable over time. Since anyone can edit and contributors are constantly changing, can the previous consensus truly be sustained? Moreover, considering Wikipedia's global usage, I would have liked to see more discussion on how cultural diversity influences the process of consensus-building. For instance, how do different cultural norms or linguistic contexts affect what is ultimately accepted as "agreed-upon knowledge"? I believe a deeper exploration of these cultural dimensions would have added valuable insight to the chapter.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Introduction to the blog

This blog is a digital forum where students from Collective Intelligence in Practice: Understanding Wikipedia at the Hanyang University in Korea (2025) will discuss their weekly readings and activities. Each week you are expected to post a blog post on our blog and make a comment on another student's post. You can do so on one of the following three topics: a) You can blog about the readings for the next week. As you are expected to do the assigned readings FOR the lectures they are assigned to, you are expected to post your blog and comments BEFORE that lecture. An ideal commentary should be about half a page in length (~200 words), divided into three clearly labeled sections in which you: 1) summarize in your own words of materials you read; 2) mention any new, interesting, or unusual items learned; 3) identify at least one question, concern, or discussion angle that is either problematic in some respect or could have been elaborated more. This question is likely to be incor...
Read more

Week 1. My Recent Wikipedia Edits - Jeong seolah (정설아)

I made several edits to the Wikipedia page for 'Daegu'.  Daegu, located in the southeastern part of South Korea, is the third-largest urban area in the country, following Seoul and Busan. With a population exceeding 2.3 million, it is the fourth-largest metropolitan city in South Korea and the second-largest in the Yeongnam region after Busan. Often referred to together with the surrounding North Gyeongsang Province as Daegu-Gyeongbuk, this region is home to over 5 million residents. Known for its rich history and vibrant economy, Daegu stands as a key player in South Korea's cultural and industrial landscape. Below is a summary of the changes I contributed. 1) Summarize and link Sights Section:  - Improved clarity by changing “mountains keep many traditional temples” to “the mountains keep many traditional temples.” Mosque Controversy Section:  - Simplified a sentence by removing “and of the authorities.” Festivals Section:  - Made phrasing smoother by changing “tho...
Read more

Week4 - Review about the readings for the next week. - Jo HyeonSeong (조현성)

 1. Summarize in my own words of materials. The book is primarily about the openness of Wikipedia. Openness means that anyone can participate in the creation and editing of articles without any qualifications. Openness can be a double-edged sword. While it means that you can edit without having expert knowledge of a topic, it also means that you can participate even if you have expert knowledge. For experts, articles written by non-experts can come across as inaccurate knowledge, which can anger experts. This anger can also be a catalyst for Wikipedia to continue to improve. However, articles edited only by non-experts can cause misunderstandings and convey incorrect information, so openness can be considered a double-edged sword. In fact, it sometimes causes some conflict, such as Wales' negative stance. Openness also means freedom from copyright, which means anyone can take it and use it anywhere. That is why the knowledge of non-experts can have greater impact. That is why appro...
Read more