Week 13 : Categorization - Jang Eun Seok

This week’s reading material was about how categories are created and used on Wikipedia. While categories are certainly a useful tool for organizing articles, the reading argued that they are not the only way to navigate collections of pages. Among the concepts discussed, I learned that categories should be verifiable, neutral, and defining in order to properly classify an article. I had originally struggled with categorization, but after reading this article, I feel that future Wikipedia translation work will become a little easier for me. 

However, I also think that categorization can differ depending on how individuals interpret an article. For example, in an article about a somewhat controversial historical figure, some editors may choose to include categories related to the figure’s achievements, while others may add more negative or controversial categories. Since Wikipedia must maintain neutrality above all else, I believe further discussion is needed on how to avoid bias when disagreements like these arise.

Comments

  1. HO RYUYEONGJune 1, 2026 at 7:45 PM

    You raised an interesting point about categorization bias around controversial figures. I'd push it a bit further: the problem isn't just disagreement between editors, but that categories are binary — an article is either in a category or not. There's no way to signal "this categorization is contested." That structural limitation makes neutrality harder to enforce compared to article prose, where you can at least add "according to some historians..." Wikipedia's categorization policy does address this through the "defining characteristic" criterion — a category should only apply if it's a core, lasting attribute of the subject. In practice though, that line is often blurry, which is exactly why category disputes end up on talk pages just as often as content disputes do.

    ReplyDelete
  2. wyyz02June 14, 2026 at 2:58 AM

    I really liked your discussion about how Wikipedia categories can reflect different perspectives and interpretations. Your example about controversial historical figures was especially interesting because it shows that categorization is not always completely neutral. I also agree with your point that categories can influence how readers understand an article before they even read the full content. Your reflection made me realize that organizing knowledge is more complicated than it seems. Overall, your blog was thoughtful, clear, and raised important questions about neutrality and bias in Wikipedia’s category system.

    ReplyDelete

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