Is is really possible to have consensus in Wikipedia?
There are some facts in the world that you can deny, for example, we can't argue about when a certain being was established or which books a certain author has written. Wikipedia has its best function in this sense. However, there are still some controversial issues which we even don't know what is truth about it. People argue not because they like it or dislike it, but because they believe something about is is true whereas others don't. In this matter, how can we deal with that information in Wikipedia? It is good that Wikipedia has at laeast open space for it. If that's good enough to be in public space, we can write and add information. But as mentioned in Reagle's chapter 5, a large number of editors support it, and a large number of editors oppose it in Wikepdia. Would that really possible to have consensus? What I think is that it's barely possible to do it and even we don't have to have consensus on some issues. I just want Wikipedia to keep trying to have itself neutral like now and let people decide what to believe and follow. I think that's what Wikipedia is about.
No comments:
Post a Comment