The internet has enabled collaborations at a scale never before possible, but the best practices for organizing such large collaborations are still not clear. Wikipedia is a visible and successful example of such a collaboration which might offer insight into what makes large-scale, decentralized collaborations successful. We analyze the relationship between the structural properties of WikiProject coeditor networks and the performance and efficiency of those projects. We confirm the existence of an overall performance-efficiency trade-off, while observing that some projects are higher than others in both performance and efficiency, suggesting the existence factors correlating positively with both. Namely, we find an association between low-degree coeditor networks and both high performance and high efficiency. We also confirm results seen in previous numerical and small-scale lab studies: higher performance with less skewed node distributions, and higher performance with shorter path lengths. We use agent-based models to explore possible mechanisms for degree-dependent performance and efficiency. We present a novel local-majority learning strategy designed to satisfy properties of real-world collaborations. The local-majority strategy as well as a localized conformity-based strategy both show degree-dependent performance and efficiency, but in opposite directions, suggesting that these factors depend on both network structure and learning strategy. Our results suggest possible benefits to decentralized collaborations made of smaller, more tightly-knit teams, and that these benefits may be modulated by the particular learning strategies in use.
For Wikipedia specifically, Robert and Romero @cite_35 found that larger group sizes yield higher article ratings when the groups are diverse and experienced. Kittur and Kraut found that different types of coordination have a complex effect on the quality of Wikipedia articles @cite_31 . Both explicit and implicit coordination result in higher quality articles, with explicit coordination being especially central in the early life of an article. Shaw and Hill @cite_32 found that behavior in online wiki communities is consistent with the iron law of oligarchy,'' which states that earlier members of a group will, over time, gain disproportionate decision-making power and act increasingly out of self-interest rather than the good of the group @cite_21 . Similarly, @cite_7 attributed decreasing participation on Wikipedia to poor retention of new users. Looking specifically at Wikipedia policies determined by editor consensus, Keegan and Fiesler @cite_28 found a trend from flexible rule-making towards less flexible maintenance and deliberation. Using content analysis, @cite_11 found WikiProjects to be more loosely organized than traditional teams.
@cite_35 @cite_7 @cite_28 @cite_21 @cite_32 @cite_31 @cite_11
2065100127 2098691030 1988286798 2176969472
Wikipedia's success is often attributed to the large numbers of contributors who improve the accuracy, completeness and clarity of articles while reducing bias. However, because of the coordination needed to write an article collaboratively, adding contributors is costly. We examined how the number of editors in Wikipedia and the coordination methods they use affect article quality. We distinguish between explicit coordination, in which editors plan the article through communication, and implicit coordination, in which a subset of editors structure the work by doing the majority of it. Adding more editors to an article improved article quality only when they used appropriate coordination techniques and was harmful when they did not. Implicit coordination through concentrating the work was more helpful when many editors contributed, but explicit coordination through communication was not. Both types of coordination improved quality more when an article was in a formative stage. These results demonstrate the critical importance of coordination in effectively harnessing the "wisdom of the crowd" in online production environments. Prior scholarship on Wikipedia's collaboration processes has examined the properties of either editors or articles, but not the interactions between both. We analyze the coauthorship network of Wikipedia articles about breaking news demanding intense coordination and compare the properties of these articles and the editors who contribute to them to articles about contemporary and historical events. Using p* ERGM methods to test a multi-level, multi-theoretical model, we identify how editors' attributes and editing patterns interact with articles' attributes and authorship history. Editors' attributes like prior experience have a stronger influence on collaboration patterns, but article attributes also play significant roles. Finally, we discuss the implications our findings and methods have for understanding the socio-material duality of collective intelligence systems beyond Wikipedia. The success of Wikipedia and the relative high quality of its articles seem to contradict conventional wisdom. Recent studies have begun shedding light on the processes contributing to Wikipedia's success, highlighting the role of coordination and contribution inequality. In this study, we expand on these works in two ways. First, we make a distinction between global (Wikipedia-wide) and local (article-specific) inequality and investigate both constructs. Second, we explore both direct and indirect effects of these inequalities, exposing the intricate relationships between global inequality, local inequality, coordination, and article quality. We tested our hypotheses on a sample of a Wikipedia articles using structural equation modeling and found that global inequality exerts significant positive impact on article quality, while the effect of local inequality is indirect and is mediated by coordination Unlike traditional firms, open collaborative systems rely on volunteers to operate, and many communities struggle to maintain enough contributors to ensure the quality and quantity of content. However, Wikipedia has historically faced the exact opposite problem: too much participation, particularly from users who, knowingly or not, do not share the same norms as veteran Wikipedians. During its period of exponential growth, the Wikipedian community developed specialized socio-technical defense mechanisms to protect itself from the negatives of massive participation: spam, vandalism, falsehoods, and other damage. Yet recently, Wikipedia has faced a number of high-profile issues with recruiting and retaining new contributors. In this paper, we first illustrate and describe the various defense mechanisms at work in Wikipedia, which we hypothesize are inhibiting newcomer retention. Next, we present results from an experiment aimed at increasing both the quantity and quality of editors by altering various elements of these defense mechanisms, specifically pre-scripted warnings and notifications that are sent to new editors upon reverting or rejecting contributions. Using logistic regressions to model new user activity, we show which tactics work best for different populations of users based on their motivations when joining Wikipedia. In particular, we found that personalized messages in which Wikipedians identified themselves in active voice and took direct responsibility for rejecting an editor’s contributions were much more successful across a variety of outcome metrics than the current messages, which typically use an institutional and passive voice.