Week 16: Understanding How Wikipedia Works: Knowledge, Collaboration, and Power

1. Summary of the Readings and Experience

For this post, I want to reflect on what I learned by engaging with Wikipedia — not just as a reader, but as someone who tried to edit and create content. Although I’ve used Wikipedia for years, I had never really thought about how it operates behind the scenes until I tried to contribute myself. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative encyclopedia built by volunteers around the world. Unlike traditional encyclopedias written by experts, Wikipedia allows anyone with internet access to create or edit entries — but this openness is guided by strict community rules. Through this experience, I realized that Wikipedia functions like a self-regulating ecosystem with its own norms, roles, and power dynamics. There are several key policies every editor must follow: neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research. These principles ensure that Wikipedia articles reflect existing knowledge rather than personal opinions. Every claim needs a reliable source, and discussions about edits happen publicly on article “talk pages.” Another important feature is the hierarchy of users. While anyone can edit, experienced users (called “administrators”) have more authority — they can protect pages, delete content, and resolve disputes. There are also bots that patrol for vandalism and automated edits. Although it’s “open,” Wikipedia is far from chaotic — it’s governed by an invisible but powerful social structure.

2. What Was New or Interesting

What struck me most was how difficult it actually is to contribute to Wikipedia — at least, to do it right. I had assumed that editing would be simple: just click “edit” and type. But in practice, there are many rules about citation format, categories, internal linking, and notability standards. I tried to contribute a Vietnamese-language article on “Internet censorship in South Korea” and found the process surprisingly frustrating. For example, I didn’t know how to link it to the original English article or how to categorize it properly. Even writing a simple introduction became difficult because I had to follow Wikipedia’s tone — neutral and encyclopedic, not personal or emotional. Also interesting was the idea that Wikipedia is not about truth — it’s about verifiability. This means even if something is true, it can’t be added unless it’s published in a reliable source. This policy protects against misinformation, but also limits local or alternative knowledge that may not be “officially” recorded. That made me reflect on whose knowledge counts as legitimate in the digital world. I was also impressed by how Wikipedia’s community monitors and maintains the quality of articles. Even though there are no paid editors, users quickly detect and revert poor or biased edits. It’s a strong example of distributed collaboration, where people with different skills work together to maintain a shared space.

3. A Question or Critical Reflection

While I admire Wikipedia’s democratic vision, I also found it problematic in some ways — especially in how it controls knowledge. One issue is barriers to entry. Even though anyone “can” edit, not everyone feels welcome or confident enough to do it. The rules are complex, the editing interface is not user-friendly, and many contributions by new users get reverted quickly. In my case, I wasn’t sure where to get help, and even after reading the guide, I felt overwhelmed.

This raises the question: Is Wikipedia truly open, or just open to those who already understand its culture? In many ways, contributing to Wikipedia requires a kind of “cultural capital” — technical skills, language proficiency, and familiarity with academic standards. This creates an invisible gatekeeping effect.

Another concern is representation. Studies show that most Wikipedia editors are male, Western, and relatively privileged. That means certain topics (like K-pop or European history) are well-covered, while others (like rural life in Vietnam or women’s issues in Africa) are underrepresented. Even well-meaning rules like “notability” or “reliable sources” can unintentionally exclude voices from the margins.

I think this has important implications for how we think about knowledge in the digital age. Wikipedia is often the first place people go for information — so who gets to shape that information matters. We should ask: How can we make Wikipedia more inclusive and supportive for contributors from different backgrounds? Can it be truly global if its editors mostly come from a few countries?