WEEK3——Reading notes——ZHUANG MINNA

1）Summary

Joseph M. Reagle Jr.’s Good Faith Collaboration: The Culture of Wikipedia examines how Wikipedia’s unique culture of open collaboration functions. The book explores core principles like"good faith presumption" (assuming contributors act with good intentions) and"neutral point of view"(NPOV), which have allowed Wikipedia to grow into the world’s largest crowdsourced encyclopedia. However, Reagle also highlights tensions between Wikipedia’s idealistic vision and its real-world challenges.  


2）Interesting Points

1. The Power of "Good Faith"– The expectation that editors act in good faith reduces conflict and fosters collaboration, even amid disagreements.  

2. Bureaucracy in an Anti-Bureaucratic System– Despite its open ethos, Wikipedia developed complex rules (e.g., deletion debates) to manage disputes, creating an accidental bureaucracy.  

3. The Gender Gap– Less than 15% of Wikipedia editors are women, leading to biases in content coverage (e.g., fewer biographies of women).  

4. Meritocracy vs. Hierarchy– While Wikipedia claims to be egalitarian, an informal hierarchy forms around experienced editors, challenging pure democratic ideals.  


3）Discussion Questions

-Can "good faith" survive in today’s polarized internet?With misinformation and edit wars rising, is Wikipedia’s founding principle still sustainable?  

- Does Wikipedia’s rule system exclude newcomers? The growing complexity of guidelines may discourage casual contributors.  

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