Week 12 Reflection: Collaboration and Co-Creation — Understanding the Evolution of Wikipedia Articles
Name：CHENYUNLIN

This week, I gained a deeper understanding of how Wikipedia articles gradually develop into high-quality entries. In the past, I often viewed Wikipedia as just a tool for quick reference. But in reality, it's more like an evolving knowledge ecosystem.

Wikipedia articles rarely begin as polished or complete. Most start as brief “stub” entries and, over time, are expanded and refined by numerous editors who contribute content, structure, and reliable citations. This growth process demonstrates the decentralized nature of knowledge production: no single editor-in-chief, no closed peer review—just the ongoing collaboration of thousands of volunteers worldwide.

What impressed me most was the logic behind Wikipedia's article assessment system. Unlike traditional publishing, where quality is controlled by authors and reviewers, Wikipedia relies on community consensus and core content policies—such as neutrality (NPOV), reliable sourcing, and verifiability—to create a self-regulating and self-correcting environment.

Though it may seem “messy” at first glance, this system actually reflects a highly organized culture of self-discipline. In this environment, every user is both a reader and a builder; every small edit is a contribution to shared knowledge.

From a broader perspective, this model of open collaboration is quietly reshaping our understanding of “authority.” On Wikipedia, knowledge is no longer the exclusive domain of a few experts but the result of collective input. This trend toward the democratization of knowledge may well be one of the most important cultural shifts of the information age.

Comments

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