Week4 - Review about the readings for the next week. - Lee Jaehyun (이재현)

1. Summarize in my your own words of materials that I read

An article of this week explores the complexity of openness in Wikipedia. While the site allows anyone to edit, this openness can cause issues like vandalism or low-quality contributions. Some believe this drives away good contributors, while others argue it can still lead to article improvement through community correction.

Reagle argues that true openness doesn't mean “anything goes.” Like open-source communities, Wikipedia needs structure and rules. Even its “Ignore All Rules” policy exists to prioritize content quality over strict rule-following.

He outlines five core values of open content communities: open content, transparency, integrity, nondiscrimination, and noninterference (the ability to fork projects in disagreement).

The chapter also discusses four challenges to openness: whether anonymous edits should be allowed, the legitimacy of hidden administrative actions, the risks of growing bureaucracy, and gender-specific spaces like WikiChix.

Overall, openness is shown to be a flexible, evolving value that requires ongoing community negotiation

--------------------------------
2. Mention of any new, interesting, or unusual items that I learned through lecture.

One interesting idea I learned from the lecture was the five values that define true openness in online communities, especially in Wikipedia. I used to think openness just meant “anyone can edit,” but I realized it includes deeper values like structure and fairness.

Joseph Reagle outlines five core values: open content, transparency, integrity, nondiscrimination, and noninterference. I was surprised to learn how these abstract ideas appear in real practices—for example, transparency through public edit histories, and nondiscrimination through judging edits by merit, not identity.

Noninterference was new to me. It allows users to “fork” content and create separate projects if they disagree with existing practices, which expands the meaning of openness.

This lecture helped me see that maintaining openness is not just about accessibility. It also requires rules, shared values, and ongoing discussion to ensure fairness and collaboration.

----------------------------------------------

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

One concern I had after reading the chapter is how Wikipedia balances openness with expertise. While anyone can edit, the chapter didn’t fully explore how expert knowledge is handled or valued within the platform. This seems especially important for topics that require accuracy and deep understanding.

The idea of nondiscrimination emphasizes judging edits on merit, not credentials. But without knowing who contributors are, how can the community assess expertise fairly? I wonder if this lack of recognition discourages specialists from participating or makes their input more easily dismissed.

I believe the chapter could have elaborated more on this tension between inclusiveness and authority. It would be useful to consider how Wikipedia can preserve its openness while also encouraging high-quality, expert contributions, especially in an era of growing misinformation.


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