Week6--A Globe in Accord--LIUJUNYU

 Wikipedia emphasizes "openness" - anyone can edit, modify or even create entries. This sounds like a utopian ideal society, but Reagle pointed out sharply that this openness does not mean complete laissez-faire. While being open, Wikipedia must set rules, processes and identity systems to manage behavior and maintain quality. This constitutes the so-called "paradox of openness": to achieve true openness, some form of structure and constraints are required.

What attracted my attention most in the article was Reagle's discussion of "autobiographical entries" and "standards of fame". He described that many editors would write entries for themselves or their loved ones out of good intentions, but this often caused controversy - for example, the content was too subjective, did not meet the principle of neutrality, and even violated Wikipedia's "conflict of interest" policy. At the same time, the discussion about "who deserves an entry" also exposed the tension in the open community's judgment criteria: should it only include "objectively famous people" or provide space for more marginalized people? These discussions show a more complex reality: openness does not mean equality, and each community needs to define its boundaries and standards, and this definition process itself is often full of struggle and negotiation.

After reading this chapter, my deepest feeling is that true "freedom" is not unrestrained chaos, but a co-constructed space pursued within rules. The success of Wikipedia lies in the fact that it has created a culture of "coexistence of participation and norms". For digital natives and content creators, this provides an important revelation - we can build a collaborative platform that is both free and orderly, as long as we are willing to face and deal with the "open paradox".