Week 12 - Review about the readings about contents of the book[Reagle.org Chapter 3] - Lee Jaehyun (이재현)

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

Chapter 3 of Good Faith Collaboration explores how Wikipedia functions through the principles of Neutral Point of View(NPOV) and the assumption of good faith. These shared norms enable diverse users to collaborate productively, even when editing controversial topics. Reagle uses the "Evolution" article to show how disputes are managed by emphasizing civility, negotiation, and community trust. Instead of avoiding conflict, contributors work to present all significant views fairly. The chapter highlights how a balance between openness and cooperation is key to Wikipedia’s growth, despite disagreements or differing worldviews among users.

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

I found the concept of “writing for the enemy” particularly insightful. This practice, where editors represent opposing views fairly, encourages empathy and improves article quality. Another interesting idea is that neutrality on Wikipedia doesn’t mean being unbiased, but rather striving to fairly reflect significant viewpoints. The idea that neutrality is not an absolute, but a tool for collaboration, shifts how I view knowledge-sharing online. It was also surprising to learn how Wikipedia's editorial structure depends more on cultural norms than on rigid rules, showing that cooperation is built socially rather than enforced strictly.

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

While the principles of good faith and NPOV are essential to Wikipedia, I question how effectively they are enforced. What happens when editors continually act in bad faith or manipulate neutrality? Reagle doesn’t fully explore the limits of these values. There’s also concern about how minority perspectives are protected when the majority controls editorial norms. If neutrality is a social agreement, who decides when it is achieved? These questions reveal a potential gap between ideals and practice, especially when conflicts persist. More detail on conflict resolution and safeguarding marginalized voices would strengthen this otherwise thoughtful analysis.