Week 2: Understanding and Reflections on Wikipedia—BAISHIQI（백시기)

Summary

Over the past two weeks, my relationship with Wikipedia changed quite a bit. I used to just treat it as a quick go-to for checking facts—something I’d skim through before moving on. But now, after actually trying to edit something myself, I’ve come to see that Wikipedia is way more complex than it looks. It’s not just a website full of articles—it’s a huge, constantly evolving collaboration built by people from all over the world.

Interesting Discoveries

One thing that really surprised me is how fast Wikipedia gets updated. I saw entries being changed within hours—sometimes even minutes—after news breaks or new information comes out. It made me realize how different Wikipedia is from traditional encyclopedias, which take years to revise. Here, things move in real time.

I also found it fascinating how international Wikipedia is. Because people from all kinds of backgrounds contribute, some topics are presented from different cultural perspectives. I compared a couple of historical articles across languages, and it was eye-opening to see how the tone and interpretation can shift depending on the region. It made me more aware of how subjective even “factual” information can be.

And honestly, I didn’t expect Wikipedia to have so many rules. Before this, I assumed anyone could just go in, write something, and hit save. But now I know there are detailed guidelines about how to write, how to format, and especially how to cite sources. If something’s off, there’s a good chance another editor will either fix it or remove it pretty quickly.

Discussion

Of course, Wikipedia has its downsides too. The biggest issue, in my opinion, is still reliability. Even though a lot of content is well-written and accurate, the fact that anyone can edit means mistakes—or worse, biased edits—can slip through. Well-known pages usually get fixed fast, but more niche topics might stay inaccurate for a long time.

I also came across the idea of “edit wars,” especially on controversial topics. It seems like when people strongly disagree, they just keep changing each other’s edits over and over. That makes it hard to figure out what’s actually true, especially if you don’t know much about the topic to begin with.

Another thing I noticed is how easy it is to rely too much on Wikipedia. It’s so convenient that sometimes I catch myself using it as my first—and only—source. But as I’ve learned (and been reminded by professors), it’s not always the most trustworthy reference, especially for academic work. It’s better as a starting point than a final source.

Conclusion

All in all, this experience helped me see Wikipedia in a new light. It’s an amazing tool for sharing knowledge, but you need to approach it critically. Don’t just trust everything—check the references, read different versions, and keep in mind that it’s written by real people who can make mistakes. At the same time, it’s cool to realize that people like me can actually contribute. That’s something I hadn’t really thought about before.