http://reagle.org/joseph/2010/gfc/chapter-4.html
Summary :
The papersaid itself as an intermediary between Wikipedia's open content environments which experience continuous imbalance because of four tensions including policy, process, people, and openness values.
Wikipedia's openness builds on five building blocks derived from the principles of FOSS movement: Wikipedia uses open content licensing such as GFDL although there are other options.
The paper recognized the following challenges: the Seigenthaler incident caused so called 'semi-protection' features designed to block anonymous edits, which question the users' ability to edit the encyclopedia, 'office actions' to make legal changes are not in line with the claim of being transparent; the ever increasing pace of bureaucracy threatens to extinguish thesocial spirit of Wikipedia, and WikiChix: a women only space , went against the non discrimination policy, but was trying to solve the issue of women's marginalization.
The finalsection of the article discusses the dangers of openness alongside the need to constantly negotiate its continuum nature which demonstrates that active discussions reflect a functional open community through examples like Wikipedia's tension discussions.
My thoughts and opinions:
The diagram for collaboration/participation depicts an extremely thorny problem for Wikipedia: open contribution versus accuracy.
Those "quasi protected" aspects that are now part of the system after the Siegenthaler incident are particularly remarkable.
They akin to a middle ground that is sorely needed but at the same time undermines the very essence of the system. The problem reveals the fact that even the most idealistic open projects have to contend with some form of real world constraints at some point.
The increasing bureaucratization of Wikipedia throughout its development raises significant concerns. Successful movements frequently exhibit a transition from unregulated experimental origins towardstructured environments.
I keep wondering whether this is just a growth phenomenon or whether it is possible to control the scale and simultaneously retain creativity and innovativeness.
The WikiChix case serves as an excellent illustration of the intricate connection between inclusive practices and non-discriminatory principles.
The creation of women-only spaces appears contradictory to equality principles but serves as essential measures to correctsystemic disparities by showing the gap between theoretical equality andreal-world application.
Discussion :
How can Wikipedia strike a delicate balance between ensuring information reliability and maintaining its core principle of open editability, particularly given the nuanced role of "semi-protection" features in moderating content?
What innovative strategies might Wikipedia employ to preserve its dynamic community structure while gradually navigating the challenges of bureaucratization, and how can the project sustain its original spirit of creative experimentation and collaborative innovation?
How can open communities strategically navigate the complex tensions inherent in fostering openness, recognizing it as a multifaceted continuum rather than a simplistic binary, and effectively balance transparency, participation, and quality control?
In what ways can Wikipedia and similar open communities proactively address systemic inequalities and promote genuine inclusivity, as exemplified by initiatives like WikiChix, while simultaneously upholding principles of equal treatment and non-discriminatory participation?
I agree to you. But, I want to ask you about backfire of openness. The book is saying inaccurate information from non-experts can stimulate experts. And This make experts modify it. What do you think about this one?
ReplyDeleteThank you for your constructive comments :)
DeleteI think the flip side of openness is a good thing: when non-experts edit the wiki and inaccurate information is written in a wiki article, experts who see it correct it with accurate and specialized information, making Wikipedia a higher quality online encyclopedia.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think that this article presents a thoughtful and balanced view of the complex tensions underlying Wikipedia’s open model. It highlights how ideals like openness, inclusivity, and transparency must constantly be negotiated with practical realities such as legal risks, misinformation, and systemic bias. I found the WikiChix example particularly compelling, as it demonstrates the need for targeted spaces to support marginalized contributors, even when such actions appear to contradict universal policies. The discussion of semi-protection and bureaucracy also reveals how open systems evolve in response to real-world challenges.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I am concerned that these necessary adjustments, like increased moderation or growing administrative layers might gradually erode the very openness that made Wikipedia revolutionary. As the platform matures, it risks becoming more rigid and less welcoming to spontaneous, creative contributions. The challenge is not only how to sustain openness, but how to evolve without losing the participatory spirit that made Wikipedia a symbol of digital collaboration.