Week 12 How Wikipedia Articles Actually Grow

Summary

This week's reading, Wikipedia:Article development, explains how Wikipedia articles evolve from their earliest form into polished, comprehensive pieces. Most articles start off as stubs and ideally grow into well-written, comprehensive articles with time. The page walks through each stage of this process: a stub is the most basic starting point, often just a sentence or two, and from there an article can move up to Start class, then B class, then Good Article, and eventually Featured Article status. Article quality assessments are mainly performed by members of WikiProjects, who tag talk pages of articles. What I found useful is that the page also gives practical advice — it lists tools and resources for finding underdeveloped articles that need work, and it emphasizes that skipping stages is not just permissible, it is in fact recommended. So there's no expectation that you have to build an article one small step at a time.

What I Found Interesting

The thing that stood out most to me was what "Featured Article" actually means in practice. I always thought Wikipedia articles were just... Wikipedia articles, and some happened to be better than others. But featured articles present Wikipedia's best work to people who might not know about Wikipedia, and they go through a formal review process — the Featured Article Candidates page — where editors check for things like prose quality, accuracy, neutrality, and completeness. That's a much more structured process than I expected from a volunteer-run platform. Also, reading this alongside the video on advanced editing made me realize how much invisible infrastructure exists behind Wikipedia: WikiProjects, quality ratings, talk page tags, review nominations. Most casual readers never see any of it.

Question / Discussion Point

My concern is about what happens to the vast majority of articles that never make it past the early stages. One outside source I came across pointed out something that the Wikipedia page itself doesn't really acknowledge: the normal life cycle of most articles is "create as Stub or Start, then stagnate." The Wikipedia:Article development page presents a fairly optimistic picture of articles gradually improving, but in reality most stubs seem to just sit there indefinitely. This raises a question I'd like to discuss: does Wikipedia have any real mechanism for pushing neglected articles forward, or does improvement depend entirely on whether someone happens to care about that particular topic? And if most articles stagnate at the lowest quality levels, what does that say about Wikipedia's reliability as a reference source for less popular topics?

— [호류영 / Ho Ryuyeong]

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 (2026) 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...
Read more

WEEK2— WANG SIWEN

During this week, I made 15 edits on Wikipedia and also created a new personal sandbox. Most of my edits focused on adding new content and translating information between different language versions of articles. Through this process, I tried to make the content clearer and more accessible to readers from different language backgrounds. In addition, I created a new sandbox to practice editing and organize my ideas before publishing them on the main article pages. The sandbox allowed me to test formatting and translation structures more carefully, which helped me avoid mistakes in public articles. This week’s editing experience helped me understand that translation on Wikipedia is not simply changing words from one language to another. It also requires attention to accuracy, context, and neutrality so that the information remains reliable and consistent with Wikipedia’s standards. Overall, this week’s work helped me improve my editing and translation skills, and it also gave me a deeper ...
Read more

WEEK2 ——edits on Wikipedia

During this week, I made several edits on Wikipedia. My main work was adding citations to some sentences that lacked sources in order to improve the reliability of the article content. For example, I added citations from gaming media websites for descriptions of the influence of characters in the Resident Evil series, and also supplemented official sources for the feature introduction of the Origin platform. These edits can be seen in my Wikipedia contributions history. User contributions for Wjyy1212 - Wikipedia  While editing these pages, I learned about some content I hadn't noticed before. For instance, how digital gaming platforms like Origin operate—players no longer need physical discs after purchasing a game but can download it directly through their account. This reflects the development trend in the gaming industry from physical distribution to digital distribution.In addition, the influence of game characters should not be underestimated.  I also have questions I wo...
Read more