Week 14 - Review about contents of the book[Wikipedia @20 chapter 6 - Wikipedia and Libraries] - Lee Jaehyun (이재현)

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

The article reflects on the intertwined relationship between Wikipedia and libraries, highlighting their shared mission of making knowledge freely accessible. The author, both a librarian and Wikipedia editor, recounts personal experiences to illustrate how these institutions collaborate to preserve and democratize information. Libraries contribute credibility and access to resources, while Wikipedia offers global reach and dynamic collaboration. Themes of quality, inclusiveness, and sustainability underscore the future challenges and goals for both. Through grassroots contributions and open participation, the article emphasizes how Wikipedia is not only a technological platform but a living community dedicated to curating knowledge as a public good.

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

I was interested in to learn about the deep collaboration between librarians and Wikipedians, particularly initiatives like #1lib1ref, where each librarian adds a single citation to Wikipedia. The historical anecdotes provided unique insight into Wikipedia’s grassroots nature and global inclusiveness. I also found it fascinating how Wikipedia embodies systemic bias by relying heavily on published sources, which themselves carry historical inequities. Furthermore, Wikipedia’s editor diversity issue and the sustainability challenges it faces in a mobile-first internet landscape were both eye-opening. The idea that Wikipedia is a living, evolving encyclopedia was a powerful and inspiring concept.

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

One area that could benefit from further elaboration is how Wikipedia practically balances openness with information reliability, especially given its anonymous contributor base. While the article addresses sourcing and editor diversity, it leaves questions about dispute resolution, editorial control, and authority management somewhat vague. For example, how does Wikipedia protect against disinformation while preserving its open-access ethos? Additionally, though systemic bias is acknowledged, there is little discussion on concrete strategies to mitigate it structurally beyond individual efforts. Exploring these institutional mechanisms would offer valuable insight into whether Wikipedia can scale both inclusivity and credibility in tandem.


Comments

  1. Jo HyeonSeongJune 1, 2025 at 11:36 PM

    Thanks to your carefully organized review, I was able to understand at a glance the consensus process of Wikipedia and the various conflicts that arise within it. In particular, since you specifically mentioned actual dispute cases, I was able to feel the practical difficulties and complexity of consensus that are difficult to understand with theoretical explanations alone.

    I found the part about ‘the difference between consensus and majority rule’ mentioned in this article particularly interesting. I think we can discuss more deeply whether consensus is really possible in a space where diverse people gather like Wikipedia, or whether the majority opinion does not end up overshadowing the minority opinion. I would like to share my actual experiences and thoughts centered around the question, “What is true consensus in online collaboration?”

    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