Week 5 - Review about the readings for the next week. - Lee Jaehyun (이재현)

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

In Chapter 5 of Good Faith Collaboration, Joseph Reagle explores the challenges of achieving consensus within Wikipedia. While consensus is valued as the ideal model for collaborative editing, the chapter illustrates how reaching agreement among diverse contributors can be complex. Through examples such as debates over article naming conventions for “Buffy the Vampire Slayer,” Reagle shows that even seemingly trivial matters can lead to deep disputes. The chapter compares Wikipedia's model with decision-making approaches used by Quakers and Internet communities, emphasizing that Wikipedia’s open and anonymous nature complicates consensus-building. Arbitration mechanisms like the ArbCom are introduced to resolve conflicts when discussion alone is insufficient.

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

One interesting insight from this chapter is how Wikipedia’s consensus model mirrors, yet differs from, other collaborative traditions such as Quaker meetings or Internet standardization processes. I was surprised to learn that Wikipedia sometimes relies on a formal arbitration committee (ArbCom) when consensus breaks down, acting almost like a “Supreme Court” for editorial disputes. Another unusual aspect is how minor content issues—like whether every TV episode should have its own article—can evolve into complex philosophical arguments about notability, neutrality, and structure. This revealed how deep the community’s values run, and how even lightweight disagreements can escalate into institutional decisions.

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

One point that could have been further elaborated is how Wikipedia defines the “quality” of consensus. While the chapter notes that consensus isn’t merely about majority opinion, it doesn’t fully explain how editors or ArbCom evaluate the depth, coherence, or fairness of differing viewpoints. What happens when a vocal minority dominates the conversation? Also, how does the community ensure that newcomers or marginalized voices are not sidelined in discussions? Exploring mechanisms for ensuring inclusivity and balancing power within consensus processes would provide a richer picture of how Wikipedia navigates not just agreement, but equitable collaboration.