Week12 - I read Chapter 3 again 'Good Faith Collaboration' - Jo HyeonSeong (조현성)

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

Joseph Reagle explains that Wikipedia's collaborative culture is based on two principles: 'neutral point of view (NPOV)' and 'good faith cooperation'. This chapter emphasizes 'good faith cooperation' in particular, which refers to an attitude of interpreting other contributors' intentions positively and being polite and patient.

He believes that Wikipedia cannot be maintained by technical systems alone, and that sustainable collaboration is possible only when contributors follow these social norms. He also shows how these principles are applied through real-life examples in the 'Evolution' article.

In conclusion, Reagle says that collaboration on Wikipedia is not simply coordination, but a cultural practice toward a common goal.


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

I consider myself a beginner in editing Wikipedia. When I read Chapter 3, Reagle said that one of the most important attitudes in working on Wikipedia is to positively accept other people's editing intentions. As a beginner, you may make mistakes, and you may feel embarrassed or offended when someone edits your edits, but Wikipedia pursues a culture that believes that "the other person is not malicious, but is trying to create better content" even in such situations. I think this part reduces the burden on beginners and makes them feel less reluctant to get started. This is refreshing and impressive in that it is the key secret to the continuation of a large collaborative project like Wikipedia. The fact that "attitude" and "culture" support the system more than technology or rules was even more appealing to beginners like me.

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

The very act of raising issues can be suppressed. In a culture that emphasizes goodwill, as discussed in Chapter 3, conflict or criticism can be viewed negatively. Even if actual issues are raised, there is a risk that participants will be reluctant to criticize and remain silent because they may be perceived as being “too aggressive” or “not cooperating.”

Also, I don't think anyone can objectively define the standard of 'good faith'. Reagle expects Wikipedia participants to interpret each other in good faith, but the judgment of good faith and bad faith is very subjective. One person may perceive a simple edit as an attack, while another may perceive criticism in a discussion as ignorance or rudeness.

Comments

  1. Lee JaehyunMay 22, 2025 at 11:35 PM

    I think that 'emphasizing goodwill and good faith in Wikipedia' is essential for fostering cooperation and minimizing unnecessary conflict. These norms help ensure that discussions stay respectful and inclusive, encouraging broader participation. However, I also see the limitations of this approach. The concept of “good faith” is subjective, what feels like honest contribution to one person may seem rude or disruptive to another. Moreover, the pressure to always appear cooperative can discourage valid criticism or the raising of important concerns. In this sense, the norm may unintentionally suppress disagreement, making it harder to address real issues within the community.

    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