I had a look at the tennis wikiproject, which seems to have been going on for years!!!! The site itself does not purport to being democratic, so why bother with collaborating at all? Wikipedia says this is not a political arena, but the way these projects are put together is very autocratic. Consensus, the 4th pillar code of conduct for wikipedia asks that a consensus of opinion is found, but no polls are usually undertaken, and this is not measured. Silence or failure to respond on a discussion board implies consent. In any event, arbitration committees and the board of trustees could have the final say in any changes, so why use consensus? Wikipedia ask writers to behave in a certain way indicating that editing and achieving the changes you desire should not involve bullying, manipulation or dishonesty etc, but this will depend on individual characteristics, and some people are just like that. Im not sure why people get involved with this, but there is some evidence from the discussion boards that professional journalists participate, I guess because of their love of writing.In terms of knowledge, it is very challenging to attempt to authenticate the material.
If it is sourced then how would you know how reliable that website or book is, and what could be deemed as factual? However, confrontational issues in talk and discussion pages do have some pedagogical application. Opinions are different perspectives that open up discussions and provide ideas and encourage critical thinking skills. Confrontation fuels people into action getting them to think in order to refute arguments and justify opinions, which result in much better responses, especially on an asynchronous discussion board.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The very strength of technologies like Usenet - also become their weaknesses. Since most Newsgroups are unmoderated any user will know how misinformation, insults and abuse are branded about in many forums.
ReplyDeleteThis could, technically be filtered out if they were moderated, but the moderators could then be accused of being partisan.
I like the idea of an open-forum; I'm just aware that not everyone's contributions are to the same quality and therefore for wikis such as Wikipedia, a committee becomes a necessity to maintain checks and balances according to the commonly held and agreed standards.