IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0281725.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A game-theoretic analysis of Wikipedia’s peer production: The interplay between community’s governance and contributors’ interactions

Author

Listed:
  • Santhanakrishnan Anand
  • Ofer Arazy
  • Narayan Mandayam
  • Oded Nov

Abstract

Peer production, such as the collaborative authoring of Wikipedia articles, involves both cooperation and competition between contributors. Cooperatively, Wikipedia’s contributors attempt to create high-quality articles, and at the same time, they compete to align Wikipedia articles with their personal perspectives and “take ownership” of the article. This process is governed collectively by the community, which works to ensure the neutrality of the content. We study the interplay between individuals’ cooperation and competition, considering the community’s endeavor to ensure a neutral point of view (NPOV) on articles. We develop a two-level game-theoretic model: the first level models the interactions between individual contributors who seek both cooperative and competitive goals and the second level models governance of co-production as a Stackelberg (leader-follower) game between contributors and the communal neutrality-enforcing mechanisms. We present our model’s predictions regarding the relationship between contributors’ personal benefits of content ownership and their characteristics, namely their cooperative/competitive orientation and their activity profile (whether creators or curators of content). We validate the model’s prediction through an empirical analysis, by studying the interactions of 219,811 distinct contributors that co-produced 864 Wikipedia articles over a decade. The analysis and empirical results suggest that the factor that determines who ends up owning content is the ratio between one’s cooperative/competitive orientation (estimated based on whether a core or peripheral community member) and the contributor’s creator/curator activity profile (proxied through average edit size per sentence). Namely, under the governance mechanisms, the fractional content that is eventually owned by a contributor is higher for curators that have a competitive orientation. Although neutrality-seeking mechanisms are essential for ensuring that ownership is not concentrated within a small number of contributors, our findings suggest that the burden of excessive governance may deter contributors from participating, and thus indirectly curtail the peer production of high-quality articles.

Suggested Citation

  • Santhanakrishnan Anand & Ofer Arazy & Narayan Mandayam & Oded Nov, 2023. "A game-theoretic analysis of Wikipedia’s peer production: The interplay between community’s governance and contributors’ interactions," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(5), pages 1-31, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0281725
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0281725
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0281725
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0281725&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0281725?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ofer Arazy & Rick Kopak, 2011. "On the measurability of information quality," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 62(1), pages 89-99, January.
    2. Josh Lerner & Jean Tirole, 2002. "Some Simple Economics of Open Source," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(2), pages 197-234, June.
    3. ., 2020. "Prosecuting PEPs," Chapters, in: Combating Money Laundering in Africa, chapter 9, pages 160-179, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    4. Besiki Stvilia & Michael B. Twidale & Linda C. Smith & Les Gasser, 2008. "Information quality work organization in wikipedia," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 59(6), pages 983-1001, April.
    5. Ofer Arazy & Rick Kopak, 2011. "On the measurability of information quality," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 62(1), pages 89-99, January.
    6. Gerald C. Kane & Jeremiah Johnson & Ann Majchrzak, 2014. "Emergent Life Cycle: The Tension Between Knowledge Change and Knowledge Retention in Open Online Coproduction Communities," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(12), pages 3026-3048, December.
    7. Rodica Branzei & Dinko Dimitrov & Stef Tijs, 2008. "Models in Cooperative Game Theory," Springer Books, Springer, edition 0, number 978-3-540-77954-4, March.
    8. Jorgen W. Weibull, 1997. "Evolutionary Game Theory," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262731215, December.
    9. Nobuyuki Hanaki & Alexander Peterhansl & Peter S. Dodds & Duncan J. Watts, 2007. "Cooperation in Evolving Social Networks," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(7), pages 1036-1050, July.
    10. Chrysanthos Dellarocas, 2003. "The Digitization of Word of Mouth: Promise and Challenges of Online Feedback Mechanisms," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(10), pages 1407-1424, October.
    11. Deborah Gladstein Ancona & David F. Caldwell, 1992. "Demography and Design: Predictors of New Product Team Performance," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 3(3), pages 321-341, August.
    12. Carliss Y. Baldwin & Kim B. Clark, 2006. "The Architecture of Participation: Does Code Architecture Mitigate Free Riding in the Open Source Development Model?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(7), pages 1116-1127, July.
    13. Ray, Debraj & Vohra, Rajiv, 1999. "A Theory of Endogenous Coalition Structures," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 286-336, January.
    14. repec:fth:iniesr:487 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. repec:hhs:iuiwop:487 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Dellarocas, Chrysanthos, 2003. "The Digitization of Word-of-mouth: Promise and Challenges of Online Feedback Mechanisms," Working papers 4296-03, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    17. Xiaoqing Wang & Brian S. Butler & Yuqing Ren, 2013. "The Impact of Membership Overlap on Growth: An Ecological Competition View of Online Groups," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(2), pages 414-431, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Vegard Kolbjørnsrud, 2018. "Collaborative organizational forms: on communities, crowds, and new hybrids," Journal of Organization Design, Springer;Organizational Design Community, vol. 7(1), pages 1-21, December.
    2. Liuan Wang & Lu (Lucy) Yan & Tongxin Zhou & Xitong Guo & Gregory R. Heim, 2020. "Understanding Physicians’ Online-Offline Behavior Dynamics: An Empirical Study," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 31(2), pages 537-555, June.
    3. Li, Yung-Ming & Lee, Yi-Lin, 2010. "Pricing peer-produced services: Quality, capacity, and competition issues," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 207(3), pages 1658-1668, December.
    4. Frans Van der Sluis & Julien Faure & Sofie Phutachard Homnual, 2024. "An empirical exploration of the subjectivity problem of information qualities," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 75(7), pages 829-843, July.
    5. Shane Greenstein & Grace Gu & Feng Zhu, 2021. "Ideology and Composition Among an Online Crowd: Evidence from Wikipedians," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(5), pages 3067-3086, May.
    6. Hsing Kenneth Cheng & D. Daniel Sokol & Xinyu Zang, 2024. "The rise of empirical online platform research in the new millennium," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(2), pages 416-451, March.
    7. Fang, Mingyue & Nie, Huihua & Shen, Xinyi, 2023. "Can enterprise digitization improve ESG performance?," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    8. Yan Zhang & Ciaran B. Trace, 2022. "The quality of health and wellness self‐tracking data: A consumer perspective," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 73(6), pages 879-891, June.
    9. Yucheng Zhang & Zhiling Wang & Lin Xiao & Lijun Wang & Pei Huang, 2023. "Discovering the evolution of online reviews: A bibliometric review," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 33(1), pages 1-22, December.
    10. Hui, Xiang & Klein, Tobias & Stahl, Konrad, 2022. "Learning from Online Ratings," CEPR Discussion Papers 17006, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    11. Edgardo Arturo Ayala Gaytán, 2009. "Social network externalities and price dispersion in online markets," Ensayos Revista de Economia, Universidad Autonoma de Nuevo Leon, Facultad de Economia, vol. 0(2), pages 1-28, November.
    12. Chrysanthos Dellarocas & Charles A. Wood, 2008. "The Sound of Silence in Online Feedback: Estimating Trading Risks in the Presence of Reporting Bias," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(3), pages 460-476, March.
    13. Ravi Bapna & Chrysanthos Dellarocas & Sarah Rice, 2010. "Vertically Differentiated Simultaneous Vickrey Auctions: Theory and Experimental Evidence," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(7), pages 1074-1092, July.
    14. Tobias Gesche, 2022. "Reference‐price shifts and customer antagonism: Evidence from reviews for online auctions," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(3), pages 558-578, August.
    15. Nan Yang & Renyu Zhang, 2022. "Dynamic pricing and inventory management in the presence of online reviews," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 31(8), pages 3180-3197, August.
    16. Gary E. Bolton & Elena Katok & Axel Ockenfels, 2004. "How Effective Are Electronic Reputation Mechanisms? An Experimental Investigation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(11), pages 1587-1602, November.
    17. Kenju Kamei & Louis Putterman, 2018. "Reputation Transmission Without Benefit To The Reporter: A Behavioral Underpinning Of Markets In Experimental Focus," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 56(1), pages 158-172, January.
    18. Heyes, Anthony & Kapur, Sandeep, 2012. "Angry customers, e-word-of-mouth and incentives for quality provision," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 84(3), pages 813-828.
    19. Jana Kim Gutt & Karin Knorr, 2025. "Factors Influencing Organizations’ Responses on Employer Review Platforms," Working Papers Dissertations 133, Paderborn University, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics.
    20. Nuria Huete-Alcocer & Miguel Ángel Valero-Tévar, 2021. "Impact of Information Sources on Promoting Tourism in a Rural Region: The Case of the Roman Villa of Noheda," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-23, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0281725. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.