Week12-How Wikipedia Articles Actually Get Built

Section 1: Summary

This week's reading was about how Wikipedia articles develop over time, from basically nothing to (ideally) a polished, comprehensive entry. The page outlines a quality scale that goes from Stub → Start → C → B → Good Article (GA) → Featured Article (FA). A stub is just a few sentences, enough to establish that a topic exists and deserves its own page. From there, editors gradually add content, fix sources, clean up writing, and improve structure. Once an article is reasonably complete, it can be nominated for Good Article status, which involves a peer review process. Featured Articles are the top tier — they go through a more rigorous review for accuracy, neutrality, and writing quality. The video on advanced editing added more detail about what "high quality" actually means on Wikipedia: well-sourced claims, a neutral tone, clear structure, and no original research.

Section 2: Something New I Learned

What surprised me was how honest the Wikipedia community is about the fact that most articles never really make it past the stub or start stage. One page I came across while reading put it pretty bluntly: the normal life cycle of a Wikipedia article is "create as stub, then stagnate." That's kind of funny but also realistic. I had always assumed Wikipedia was this constantly improving machine, but a lot of articles just sit there half-finished for years. I also didn't know that article ratings aren't visible on the main article page at all — they're hidden on the talk page, which most readers never look at. So you could be reading a C-class article and have no idea it's considered pretty underdeveloped by editors.

Section 3: Question for Discussion

My question is about who actually does the work of pushing articles from stub to featured. From what I read, it seems like a relatively small group of very dedicated editors do most of the heavy lifting at the top end, while casual contributors mostly make small edits or create stubs. So is the quality of Wikipedia really as "collaborative" as it's marketed to be, or is it more like a two-tier system where a few power users set the standards and everyone else just fills in the gaps? And if most articles stagnate at stub level, does that mean Wikipedia has a systematic bias toward topics that happen to attract dedicated editor communities — like tech, gaming, or Western history — while other topics just get left behind?

Comments

  1. wyyz02May 21, 2026 at 4:01 AM

    I really enjoyed reading your post because your explanation of how Wikipedia articles develop over time was very clear and detailed. I also found it interesting that many Wikipedia articles remain at the stub level for years instead of continuously improving. Before this class, I also assumed that most articles were constantly updated by large numbers of contributors.

    Your discussion question was especially thought-provoking. I agree that a relatively small group of dedicated editors probably contributes most of the work required for high-quality articles. This may also explain why some topics receive much more attention than others. Topics with active editor communities can develop quickly, while less popular subjects may remain incomplete for a long time.

    Overall, your reflection helped me better understand both the strengths and limitations of Wikipedia as a collaborative knowledge platform.

    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