Week 11 - Review about the readings about contents of the book[Reagle.org Chapter 2] - Lee Jaehyun (이재현)

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

- Chapter 2 explores the long-standing dream of creating a universal encyclopedia, tracing its evolution from Enlightenment ideals through 20th century innovations like index cards and microfilm to modern digital platforms like Wikipedia. Reagle connects the visions of Otlet’s bibliographic Repertory and Wells’s "World Brain" to the emergence of Wikipedia as a technologically enabled, collaborative knowledge platform. He examines earlier attempts and highlights how Wikipedia uniquely succeeded due to the convergence of vision, practical tools like wikis, and timing. Ultimately, the chapter shows that Wikipedia represents not just a technological product but the realization of a century-old dream of shared knowledge and global cooperation.

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

- I was interested to learn how closely Wikipedia’s mission aligns with early 20th century thinkers like Paul Otlet and H. G. Wells. Otlet’s use of index cards and microfilm to structure a universal knowledge system reminded me of modern metadata and hypertext. Wells’s vision of a World Brain as a unifying, peace-promoting reference project feels idealistic, yet remarkably similar to Wikipedia’s collaborative goals. What surprised me most was that so many earlier projects failed not for lack of vision, but due to limitations in technology or community structure. Wikipedia succeeded because the right tools, ethos, and timing finally aligned.

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

- Question is whether Wikipedia’s centralized structure contradicts the decentralized ideals of earlier digital projects like GNUPedia or the Distributed Encyclopedia. While decentralization was once seen as essential for freedom and openness, Wikipedia’s success relies on a centralized platform with shared norms and version control. Does this mean that some form of structure is necessary for large-scale collaboration to succeed? Additionally, as Wikipedia continues to grow, can it maintain its openness and neutrality in the face of political polarization, misinformation, or language-based silos? Those challenge us to consider how ideals like openness evolve when they meet real-world constraints and community dynamics.

Comments

  1. Jo HyeonSeongMay 15, 2025 at 11:49 PM

    I think it would be a philosophical and productive discussion to consider how Wikipedia's centralized structure may conflict with the decentralized knowledge-sharing model of the past, and how Wikipedia can mitigate this tension and achieve true openness and collaboration in the future through critical thinking about the structure and operation of Wikipedia. However, I question whether Wikipedia's increased openness and collaboration will always be beneficial. I think that people with sufficient knowledge should be able to participate, and I wonder what you think about this part.

    ReplyDelete

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