Week 13 - Review about contents of the book[Wikipedia @20 chapter 4 - An Encyclopedia with Breaking News] - Lee Jaehyun (이재현)

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

The article analyzes how Wikipedia emerged as a key platform for covering breaking news, particularly after the 9/11 attacks. It explains how the platform responded to real-time information demand, attracting contributors and shaping its identity. Wikipedia’s collaborative model enabled rapid, accurate updates, even from editors without topic expertise. The piece contrasts this with algorithm-based social platforms that often spread disinformation. By maintaining transparency, a lack of personalization, and strong community norms, Wikipedia built a model of trustworthy, up-to-date content that continues to sustain itself, especially during times of crisis or collective attention.

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

I was intrigued to learn that Wikipedia’s real-time updates, especially post-9/11, helped define its enduring editorial culture. What surprised me most was how editors from various backgrounds quickly contribute to breaking news articles, regardless of prior interest. Also unexpected was that Wikipedia’s lack of personalization and ads actually strengthens its resistance to disinformation. Additionally, platforms like YouTube and Facebook have started using Wikipedia to moderate content without formal cooperation, which raises ethical concerns. These insights shifted my understanding of how openness and simplicity in design can lead to resilience and social value in digital knowledge platforms.

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

A major concern is whether Wikipedia’s volunteer-driven model can withstand growing reliance from tech giants like Facebook and YouTube, who use its content without contributing back. The article mentions the tragedy of the commons, yet doesn’t fully explore solutions for safeguarding editorial sustainability. What institutional support or partnerships might protect Wikipedia from being overburdened? Also, the tension between delivering fast updates and maintaining encyclopedic quality remains underexplored. How can Wikipedia balance responsiveness with its standards? Further analysis of internal governance challenges and how to handle content moderation at scale would have made the discussion more complete and forward-looking.

Comments

  1. 吕洋丞May 30, 2025 at 11:47 PM

    The content hierarchy can be more explicit. For example, the summary, reflections, and questions can be marked with subheadings to enhance visual guidance.
    The discussion questions can be more specific. For example, after raising the question of "how to balance rapid response and quality standards", you can try to give some preliminary ideas or cite relevant research to enrich the depth of analysis.
    You can add a broader discussion of the changing role, challenges, and opportunities of Wikipedia in today's social media ecosystem to make the content more forward-looking.
    If you can add some personal experiences or comparative examples of the author, such as the specific situations you participated in or observed on Wikipedia, the article will be more vivid and convincing.
    Appropriately add quotations of key sentences or data from the original text to enhance the authority of the content.

    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