Blogging through Wikipedia (2026)

  This week, I returned to editing after exam week and spent more time working on translations and references again. Compared to the beginning of the semester, I feel more familiar with Wikipedia editing now, although I still make small mistakes sometimes. One thing I noticed is that editing becomes easier when I first read how existing pages are organized. Looking at other editors’ work helped me understand better how information is usually structured on Wikipedia. I also realized that many edits on Wikipedia are actually small improvements rather than major changes. Even fixing links, wording, or citations can help improve the quality of a page.

These assignments demonstrate that working on Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia to improve university articles required careful attention to collaborative media practices. However, the experience may suggest that learning to handle media correctly in a public environment involves more than simple uploading procedures. Moreover, the significant findings from this work could indicate that understanding platform-specific protocols appears essential for sustainable contribution. Furthermore, the key results of these efforts might suggest that collaborative digital environments establish important standards that contributors must follow carefully. Contributions show uploads require proper licensing. On preventing image deletion, the deletion process on Wikimedia may suggest that the evidence for correct uploading procedures appears critical to avoid removal. Given that the findings demonstrate uploads require clear justification, the results could indicate that three key steps might ensure su...

  1. Summary After reading these sections, I learned that free culture and remix culture encourage people to share, reuse, and improve creative works freely. Wikipedia supports this idea because information can be edited and shared by many users. I also learned that social interaction is an important topic in sociology because people communicate, cooperate, and influence each other in society and online communities. 2. Interesting Points I found it interesting that remix culture allows people to build new ideas from existing content instead of always creating something completely new. I also learned that Wikipedia is connected to free culture because knowledge is shared openly with everyone. Another interesting point is that online communities, like Wikipedia, are examples of social interaction where people work together and exchange ideas. 3. Questions or Discussion One question I have is whether free culture makes it harder for original creators to protect their work. I also...

  1. Understanding Wikipedia: Free Culture and Remix Culture Free culture and remix culture are important ideas connected to Wikipedia and the modern internet. I learned that free culture supports the sharing of knowledge, creativity, and information without strict restrictions. Wikipedia reflects this idea because its content can be freely edited and reused by people around the world. One interesting point is that remix culture allows users to combine, change, and build upon existing content to create something new. This is common in online communities, especially with videos, music, memes, and fan content. I also discovered that Wikipedia uses open licenses so people can share information more easily. However, this raises questions about originality and copyright because some creators may worry about losing control over their work. It seems that free culture creates both opportunities for creativity and challenges related to ownership and recognition. 2. Topics in Sociology: S...

The reading explains how Wikipedia evaluates reliable sources and emphasizes that it does not create original knowledge but instead summarizes information from previously published materials. Reliable sources are generally those with strong editorial oversight, fact-checking processes, and established reputations, such as academic journals, books, and major news organizations. The guideline also highlights that reliability is not absolute but depends on context, meaning a source may be appropriate in one situation but not in another. One idea I found particularly interesting is that Wikipedia prioritizes “verifiability, not truth,” which means information must be supported by reliable, published sources rather than proven to be completely accurate. This was surprising because it suggests that knowledge on Wikipedia is shaped more by what can be confirmed than by what is objectively true. It also shows how credibility and consensus play a central role in the production of knowledge on c...

Reading Chapter 8, "Conclusion: 'A Globe in Accord'," gave me a clearer understanding of the essence of Wikipedia. In the past, I often attributed its success to wiki technology and the openness of the internet, but Reagle clearly points out in his summary that the true cornerstone of Wikipedia is not technology, but the willingness and cultural norms of human collaboration. He uses the metaphor of a "puzzle" to summarize the core logic of the book—editors from different languages ​​and cultures can collaboratively build knowledge because "neutrality" provides a form that can be pieced together from the fragments, while "benevolent collaboration" makes people willing to set aside prejudices and work together. However, the author does not indulge in idealistic descriptions but frankly admits that Wikipedia is far from a utopia: problems such as conflict, prejudice, malicious sabotage, and the tyranny of structural deficiencies always exist...

 Due to an uncompleted obligatory task from last week, I performed 20 Wikipedia edits this week. I shifted my focus from my usual task of 'wikilinking' to a more involved process: sourcing news articles to provide citations for statements lacking references. Although this was more time-consuming than simple link-building, I found it to be a more substantial contribution to Wikipedia's credibility. During this process, I identified numerous articles that citation needed. I believe it would be worth discussing potential strategies to crowdsource this specific task and improve the platform's overall reliability.

 At first, I've decided to translate two article " Global catastrophic risk ", and " Apocalyptic literature ." So, in week 7, I completed translate " Global catastrophic risk " in korean.   I was taking class "Media trend and  Globalization" last year, so I know how to work with wikipedia, but it's still dificult to use entire wikipedia's fuction. Especially,  during the translation process, there were templates in English Wikipedia that did not exist in Korean Wikipedia, so it took a long time to recreate the pages using the most similar templates possible. It seems that the names and functions of templates differ quite a bit across different language versions of Wikipedia, so I wondered if it would be helpful to have a feature or an article that integrates them into one system, and I was curious about what others think.

  This week, I spent more time looking at how references and citation templates are used on Wikipedia. Before, I mainly copied existing formats, but now I am starting to understand how different citation templates work. While editing, I noticed that even a small missing parameter can create formatting problems or warning messages. Because of this, I had to pay more attention to details such as titles, links, and language settings. I think citation formatting is one of the more difficult parts of Wikipedia editing because editors need to balance readability, accuracy, and technical rules at the same time.

  This week was exam week, so I did not spend much time editing Wikipedia. Most of my activity was checking previous edits and reading other articles rather than making large changes myself. Even though I was less active this week, I still noticed that Wikipedia editing requires continuous attention to details. When I looked back at some earlier edits, I found small formatting or citation issues that I did not notice before. I think one difficult part of collaborative editing is maintaining consistency over time, especially during busy academic periods when editors may not have enough time to contribute regularly.

When people think about Wikipedia, they often focus on the articles themselves. However, this reading made me realize that the real foundation of Wikipedia is not the articles, but the sources behind them. Wikipedia does not aim to create new knowledge. Instead, it relies on information that has already been published and evaluated through reliable channels such as academic journals, books, and reputable news organizations. One idea that particularly caught my attention was Wikipedia’s principle of “verifiability, not truth.” At first, this sounded strange because we usually expect encyclopedias to present facts and truth. However, I gradually understood that Wikipedia cannot independently determine what is absolutely true. Instead, it requires information to be supported by reliable and publicly available sources. In this sense, knowledge on Wikipedia is built through evidence, documentation, and consensus rather than personal belief. Another interesting point is that source reliabili...

  1. Summary After reading this section, I learned that Wikipedia values reliability and verifiability. Information in articles should come from trusted sources so readers can check if the facts are true. Editors are encouraged to add references from books, news articles, academic journals, or official websites to support the information they write. 2. Interesting Points I found it interesting that Wikipedia focuses more on whether information can be verified rather than on personal opinions. I also learned that articles without reliable sources may be changed or removed. Another interesting point is that many editors work together to check information and improve article accuracy. 3. Questions or Discussion One question I have is how editors decide which sources are truly reliable. I also wonder if some false information can still stay on Wikipedia for a long time before being corrected. Another discussion point is whether readers always check the references themselves or sim...

  Understanding Wikipedia: Reliability and Verifiability Reliability and verifiability are two of the most important principles on Wikipedia. I learned that Wikipedia requires information to be supported by reliable sources such as academic books, journal articles, and trusted news organizations. Editors are expected to provide references so that readers can check whether the information is accurate. One interesting point is that Wikipedia focuses more on whether information can be verified than on whether someone personally believes it is true. This creates a system where evidence is more important than personal opinion. I also discovered that articles with weak or missing references are often marked with warning notices. This helps readers recognize possible problems with the content. Another thing I found unusual is that Wikipedia keeps detailed edit histories, allowing users to see how articles have changed over time and who contributed to them. However, I still think reliab...

Reading   Good Faith Collaboration: The Culture of Wikipedia   helped me understand Wikipedia more clearly. Before, I thought Wikipedia was successful because of its system and technology. But after reading, I learned that the most important thing is the people and how they work together.The idea I found most interesting is “assuming good faith.” This means people believe others are trying to do something good, not something bad. When editors disagree, they do not attack each other. Instead, they try to understand and fix the problem together. I think this idea is very useful, especially online where people can easily misunderstand each other.I also learned that conflict is normal. Different people have different opinions, so disagreements will happen. But on Wikipedia, people talk, explain their ideas, and try to find the best answer. Because of this, the final content can become better.Overall, this book taught me that trust, respect, and communication are very important whe...

 After reading "The Benevolent Dictator," I gained a new understanding of Wikipedia's governance logic. Previously, I thought Wikipedia was a completely flat, decentralized community, but Reagle revealed a seemingly contradictory role—the "benevolent dictator." The author's concept of "author-led leadership" is very convincing: authority doesn't come from institutional appointments, but from long-term contributions and community reputation. Founders like Jimmy Wales, whose influence is essentially "authoritative written authority," need this role. So why does a platform centered on openness and consensus need this role? Because pure consensus mechanisms are inefficient and struggle to handle malicious sabotage and urgent disputes. When the community is deadlocked, someone must be able to quickly make centralized decisions such as banning or protecting pages. This need is not unfamiliar in the open-source world, such as the "lifel...

 This session introduced the basic editing rules of Wikipedia and how low-quality content is handled. It helped me better understand how to create proper and acceptable articles. First, regarding content quality, Wikipedia only includes information that is meaningful and well-verified. Low-quality content, such as unverified AI-generated text, advertisements, or personal promotion, is likely to be removed. Second, reliable sources are essential. All content must be supported by credible references. Even correct information may be deleted if it lacks proper citations. In terms of prohibited content, Wikipedia does not allow false information, copyright violations, or offensive language. Also, as an encyclopedia, it does not include tutorials but focuses on background information and development.We also learned about the deletion process. Articles that do not meet standards can be nominated for discussion, and the community decides whether to delete or improve them. AI-generated cont...

  This week, I did not make many big edits, but I spent more time fixing small formatting problems and checking references. I realized that even small edits can affect how an article looks and whether information appears correctly. I also started paying more attention to how experienced editors organize information. Some pages look simple when reading them, but the editing structure behind them is actually quite detailed. One thing I still find difficult is remembering all the template formats. Sometimes I accidentally make small mistakes in citations or links and need to fix them again later.

At first glance, Wikipedia seems like a surprising success story. Since anyone can edit its articles, it might appear difficult to maintain accuracy and quality. However, after learning more about how Wikipedia operates, I realized that its reliability depends not only on sources and policies but also on the culture of collaboration that supports the entire platform. One of the most important ideas I encountered is that Wikipedia values “verifiability, not truth.” Rather than asking editors to prove what is absolutely true, Wikipedia requires information to be supported by reliable published sources. This system allows articles to be checked, corrected, and improved over time. Research has even shown that many Wikipedia articles can be surprisingly accurate, especially in subjects that attract active contributors and strong source material. At the same time, reliability is closely connected to the way editors interact with one another. Wikipedia encourages contributors to assume good f...

本周的学习资料主要介绍了维基百科背后的团队以及编辑社群的运作方式。视频解释说，贡献者来自非常多元化的背景，包括学生、专业人士和业余爱好者，而且他们中的大多数都是自愿参与的。编辑们并非被分配任务，而是根据自己的兴趣选择主题，这使得维基百科平台具有高度的灵活性和持续发展性。我还了解到，维基百科的参与程度也各不相同，从偶尔进行一些小修改的编辑者，到承担诸如监督编辑或维护文章质量等角色的经验丰富的用户，都有参与的程度。 我发现特别有趣的是，尽管缺乏正式的层级权威，维基百科社群仍然能够自我组织并维持相对一致的标准。这似乎很大程度上依赖于共同的规范，例如中立性、可验证性和善意假设。这些非正式规则似乎以一种取代传统自上而下控制的方式指导着社群的行为。与此同时，这也让我意识到，在这样一个开放的环境中进行协作需要每位贡献者承担一定的责任，因为内容的质量取决于集体的努力。 我有一个疑问：是什么激励着长期贡献者在没有直接回报的情况下持续编辑？虽然个人兴趣和贡献感可能起到一定作用，但我很好奇是否还有其他因素，例如社区认可或个人满足感，能够鼓励他们长期参与。

本周的主题探讨了维基百科的范围，包括哪些类型的主题适合收录以及删除决定是如何做出的。视频介绍了“知名度”的概念，解释说并非所有主题都能拥有维基百科条目，除非它符合某些标准。 我发现有趣的是，判断一个话题是否值得关注并非总是易事。这通常取决于可靠来源的可用性以及该话题的报道范围。这表明，维基百科不仅仅是收集信息，也需要设定收录内容的界限。 我有一个疑问，那就是这些决定在不同的主题和编辑之间是否具有一致性。

This week’s materials focused on the importance of reliable sources in Wikipedia editing. The videos explained how to find and evaluate sources, while the readings emphasized the role of verifiability in maintaining the quality of information. I learned that not all sources are considered acceptable, and that editors must carefully select materials that meet Wikipedia’s reliability standards. What I found most interesting is that reliability is not only about the source itself, but also about how it is used within the article. Even a reliable source can be misused if it does not directly support the content. This made me realize that editing requires both critical thinking and attention to detail. One question I have is how editors deal with situations where reliable sources are limited, especially for less well-documented topics.

This week’s topic focused on wikis and the concept of Internet 2.0, which emphasizes user participation and collaborative content creation. The videos and readings explained how platforms like Wikipedia represent a shift from traditional information systems to more interactive and decentralized models. Instead of passively consuming information, users are now actively involved in producing and editing it. What I found particularly interesting is how this model changes the idea of authorship. In traditional systems, content is usually created by identifiable experts, but in Wikipedia, articles are written and revised by many anonymous contributors. This creates a more dynamic and constantly evolving form of knowledge, but it also raises questions about reliability and accountability. One question I have is whether collaborative platforms like Wikipedia can fully replace traditional expert-based systems in terms of credibility and authority.

 This week I continued editing Wikipedia pages related to Russian feminist activists. While editing references, I encountered an issue related to translated book titles in citation templates. At first, I thought it was enough to translate the English titles into Chinese so readers could understand them more easily. However, when I used “trans-title” without keeping the original “title,” the template produced an error message. During class, I realized that Wikipedia citation templates usually require both the original title and the translated title. The original language is important because readers may want to search for the original source later, while the translated title helps local readers understand the topic more quickly. I found this interesting because translation on Wikipedia is not simply about changing language. There is also a balance between accessibility and accuracy. If we only translate everything, some academic sources may become difficult to verify. But if we keep...

  1. Summary After reading these sections, I learned that Wikipedia was created to become a universal encyclopedia that anyone can access and edit online. The history of Wikipedia shows how it started as a small project and later became one of the largest information websites in the world. Its goal is to collect and share knowledge freely with people everywhere. 2. Interesting Points I found it interesting that Wikipedia grew so quickly because volunteers from many countries contributed articles and edits. I also learned that Wikipedia changed the traditional idea of encyclopedias by allowing normal internet users to help create content. Another interesting point is that Wikipedia continues to grow every day with new information and updates. 3. Questions or Discussion One question I have is whether Wikipedia can truly become a “universal” encyclopedia if some topics or languages have less information than others. I also wonder how Wikipedia will manage the increasing amount of...

1. Understanding Wikipedia: The Pursuit of the Universal Encyclopedia Wikipedia’s goal is to become a universal encyclopedia that provides free knowledge to everyone around the world. I learned that this idea is based on open collaboration, where people from different countries and backgrounds contribute information together. One interesting point is that Wikipedia attempts to cover almost every topic, from history and science to popular culture and local traditions. I also found it impressive that the platform is available in many languages, making knowledge more accessible globally. However, I wonder whether it is truly possible to create a completely universal encyclopedia because different cultures may have different perspectives, priorities, and interpretations of information. 2. History of Wikipedia Wikipedia was launched in 2001 and quickly became one of the world’s largest online knowledge platforms. I learned that it began as a project connected to another encyclopedia call...

This blog post explains the culture of Wikipedia through its globe puzzle logo. The logo signifies Wikipedia's role as a grand framework where people with diverse ideas and perspectives come together to assemble the world, piece by piece. It further identifies good faith and collaboration as the core engines that sustain this process, which can often be tedious and frustrating. The post once again underscores that good faith is the fundamental element constituting Wikipedia—a point mentioned consistently in previous posts. However, I found it fascinating to learn for the first time that this very meaning is embedded within the logo itself. Consequently, to ensure that the symbolic meaning of this globe remains untarnished, I believe we need in-depth discussions on how to effectively prevent vandalism .

  After reading   Chapter 8 §1 “Conclusion: A Globe in Accord”   from Joseph Michael Reagle Jr.’s book,     I understand that Wikipedia’s success is not primarily due to its technology, but rather its collaborative culture and shared values. The author uses the metaphor of a puzzle to illustrate how contributors from different backgrounds work together, guided by principles such as neutral point of view and assuming good faith. However, Wikipedia is not a perfectly harmonious space, as conflicts and negative behaviors still occur, especially in online environments with limited social context. I found it particularly interesting that “good faith” is described as an aspiration rather than a reality, which changes how we should interpret Wikipedia’s culture. I was also surprised by the argument that technology alone cannot explain Wikipedia’s success, since many similar projects fail despite using the same tools. The discussion of Godwin’s Law was also memorable in...

  This week, I spent more time comparing different language versions of Wikipedia articles while translating and editing content. I noticed that even when articles are about the same topic, the information included in each language version can be quite different. One thing I found interesting is that some articles in English are much longer and include more detailed references, while some Chinese or Korean versions focus on different parts of the topic. In some cases, certain information appears in one language version but is completely missing in another. This made me realize that Wikipedia is not only a global platform but also a reflection of different cultural perspectives and editing communities. I also learned that translation on Wikipedia is more complicated than I expected. Sometimes direct translation sounds unnatural, and sometimes certain concepts do not fully match across languages. Because of this, editors need to think carefully about both accuracy and readability. On...

  1. Summary After reading these sections, I learned that Wikipedia encourages editors to work together respectfully and assume “good faith” when others make edits. This means people should believe that most editors are trying to help, not harm articles. I also learned that Wikipedia has its own culture based on teamwork, discussion, and cooperation between users from different backgrounds. 2. Interesting Points I found it interesting that Wikipedia places a strong focus on respectful communication and collaboration. Editors are encouraged to discuss problems calmly instead of arguing. Another interesting point is that Wikipedia has community rules and shared values that help people work together more effectively online. 3. Questions or Discussion One question I have is what happens when editors cannot agree with each other even after discussion. I also wonder if some users may still act unfairly despite the “good faith” rule. Another discussion point is whether online collabo...

  1. Good Faith Collaboration Good faith collaboration is an important principle on Wikipedia because editors are expected to work together respectfully and assume that others are trying to improve the encyclopedia. I learned that even when disagreements happen, users should communicate politely and focus on solving problems instead of attacking each other personally. One interesting point is that Wikipedia encourages discussion and consensus rather than competition between editors. I also found it unusual that many conflicts can be resolved simply by explaining edits clearly on talk pages. However, I think maintaining good faith can become difficult when editors have very different opinions or strong emotional attachments to a topic. This raises questions about how online communities manage conflict effectively. 2. The Culture of Wikipedia Wikipedia has a unique culture based on openness, cooperation, and shared responsibility. I learned that the community values neutrality, re...

 This blog post focuses errors that occur during the process of editing Wikipedia and the "intellectual laziness" of those who accept such information without recognizing these flaws. Accordingly, it demands that those who edit Wikipedia provide accurate references, while asserting that users must be able to exercise "critical judgment" when utilizing the information they find.  The content of this blog aligns with several points our professor has emphasized throughout the semester. I believe we need to think deeply, as this post suggests, about which references are appropriate and trustworthy. Therefore, for this week's discussion, I think it would be worthwhile to exchange our opinions on what constitutes a reliable and appropriate reference, and what can be considered authoritative or public in nature.

 This week, I added information to our existing Wikipedia document to reflect recent changes, and inserted a footnote with reliable news articles to support what I added. Through this process, I have contributed to increasing the accuracy of the document. Here is the link I edited.  During this editing, I felt that when updating the latest information, it was much more important to clarify whether the source of that information was reliable, rather than adding it quickly and in large numbers. In particular, the process of determining whether the source of the information was reliable or biased was more difficult because there were not so many sources of information that had recently changed. However, I also felt satisfied with the idea that Wikipedia's quality was maintained through this process.  In the case of popular culture and companies, the pace of change is very fast and new information is constantly updated. In this situation, I wonder if it is more appropriate t...

  This week’s reading on the “benevolent dictator”  really made me think about leadership in open communities. Even though Wikipedia is built on volunteer contributions and consensus, Jimmy Wales can step in autocratically when necessary, like protecting articles from harmful attacks, what the chapter calls   authorial leadership . This form of leadership isn’t about holding an official title but about earning respect through contributions, persuasion, and setting examples. What struck me most was the idea of   idiosyncrasy credits : a leader’s reputation allows occasional unilateral decisions, but exceeding that can damage trust and even cause the community to fork. I also found the comparison with Larry Sanger fascinating, how Sanger’s more direct, “bad cop” style led to tension, while Wales’ subtle, “good cop” approach shaped Wikipedia’s collaborative culture. It’s interesting to see how leadership in such a massive volunteer project relies less on rules and more ...