Week 3 — Knowledge as a Public Good: The Philosophy Behind Wikipedia
Name：CHENYUNLIN

When we open Wikipedia to search for a term, it's easy to view it simply as a product of technology—millions of pages, countless users, vast servers and algorithmic systems. But in reality, what supports it isn’t just code; it’s a deep and enduring belief about knowledge itself: that knowledge is not a commodity, but a public good.

The Ideal of Decentralization: Who Gets to Define “Authority”?

Perhaps the most revolutionary aspect of Wikipedia is how it breaks from the traditional idea that knowledge must be controlled by experts. In conventional encyclopedias, only credentialed scholars are qualified to define facts. Wikipedia, however, adopts a decentralized model of collaboration: anyone who follows the rules can contribute. This openness not only lowers the barrier to participation, but also challenges the singular definition of authority.

Behind this lies a fundamental rethinking of knowledge: it should not be a tool of power, but a shared resource. As Joseph Reagle notes, “Wikipedia doesn’t aim to replace experts—it seeks to redefine the relationship between expertise and the public.”

Freedom Through Rules: Wikipedia as a Self-Governed Experiment

Many mistakenly believe that Wikipedia is a place of “ruleless editing,” but in reality, its operations depend heavily on consensus, process, and community etiquette. From the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) to the Verifiability policy, from admin roles to page protections, Wikipedia has developed a comprehensive system of governance.

What’s especially fascinating is that these rules are not imposed from the top down. Instead, they are formed, revised, and enforced collectively by the community. This “self-governing collaboration” is a pioneering form of digital governance: neither fully anarchic nor top-down, but an evolving order built on negotiation and trust.

The Ethics of Wikipedia: A Deliberate Stand Against Commercialization

In today’s internet dominated by platform capitalism, Wikipedia remains one of the rare exceptions: no ads, no user data sales, fully donation-supported and community-run. This choice against commercialization reflects a powerful ethical stance—one that values informational freedom over profit.

Because of this, Wikipedia has become one of the few “clean spaces” on the web. In an age of information manipulation and knowledge commodification, it retains a simple yet firm public mission.

Reflection: Wikipedia Is a Cultural Choice

Reading the history of Wikipedia, I’ve come to understand that it is not merely a successful “project,” but a triumph of values. It integrates principles like freedom, openness, collaboration, self-governance, and non-profit ideals into its very structure—demonstrating that the digital age still holds space for alternatives. Technology does not have to serve only commerce; it can also serve the public good.

Wikipedia reminds us that the future of knowledge isn’t predetermined. We can still choose a path different from algorithmic recommendations and ad-driven content. As its slogan declares, “The Free Encyclopedia” doesn’t just mean it’s free of charge—it means it’s born of the spirit of freedom itself.

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