Week 9 - Review about the readings for the next week.(Book Chapter 9)-CHEN SIWEN 진사문

1. Summarize in your own words the materials that you read

In Good Faith Collaboration, Reagle rethinks academic conventions to adapt to the realities of digital knowledge production, especially on platforms like Wikipedia. He simplifies citations by referencing sources as "Wikipedia" and retains original grammatical errors from web content to preserve authenticity. Rather than relying on traditional citation formats, he uses stable or archived links to ensure verifiability despite constant edits. He also minimizes URLs in print versions, encouraging readers to access a digital version with hyperlinked references. His citation practices represent a balanced approach—respecting academic standards while addressing the practical challenges of referencing collaborative, ever-evolving digital sources.

Beyond citation, Reagle explores how Wikipedia functions as a global platform for shared knowledge production. Using metaphors like puzzles, he emphasizes how diverse contributors collaborate in good faith to build an integrated, neutral resource. He acknowledges the tensions between openness and control, and the challenges of maintaining community governance in decentralized systems. The book sheds light on how the digital age is reshaping both the process and ethics of collaborative knowledge-making.

2. Mention any new, interesting, or unusual items that you learned through the lecture

One interesting insight was Reagle’s deliberate choice to preserve minor grammatical mistakes in his citations, rather than “cleaning them up.” This decision emphasizes transparency and respect for original sources, which challenges traditional academic instincts to standardize everything. I also found it surprising that he simplifies attributions instead of providing full formal citations—an unconventional move that makes sense when dealing with constantly changing online content like Wikipedia.

Another fascinating element was his use of puzzle metaphors to describe Wikipedia collaboration. This helped me visualize how neutrality and consensus emerge from diverse perspectives. His discussion of governance in open platforms was also eye-opening—it showed that running collaborative communities is much more complex than just allowing open editing. Balancing freedom and accountability is essential, especially when dealing with global contributors and sensitive content.

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 question that arises from Reagle’s work is how we can ensure the long-term credibility and traceability of scholarly references to online content. Even with stable links, websites—including Wikipedia—may change or disappear, posing challenges for future verification. Should academia develop new citation standards specifically for mutable content, like version-tracking citations or blockchain-based records?

Another concern is whether simplifying citations might weaken academic reliability. Will readers or researchers in the future struggle to find the original context? Additionally, while Reagle discusses governance challenges, he could have elaborated more on specific mechanisms platforms use to handle bias, systemic inequality, or misinformation. How do global platforms create fair policies that accommodate diverse cultural norms while maintaining quality and neutrality?