Peer produced goods, such as online knowledge bases and free/libre open source software rely on contributors who often choose their tasks regardless of consumer needs. These goods are susceptible to underproduction: when popular goods are relatively low quality. Although underproduction is a common feature of peer production, very little is known about how to counteract it. We use a detailed longitudinal dataset from English Wikipedia to show that more experienced contributors—including those who contribute without an account—tend to contribute to underproduced goods. A within-person analysis shows that contributors’ efforts shift toward underproduced goods over time. These findings illustrate the value of retaining contributors in peer production, including those contributing without accounts, as a means to counter underproduction.
AdamsJBrücknerH (2015) Wikipedia, sociology, and the promise and pitfalls of big data. Big Data & Society2(2): 2053951715614332.
3.
AviesonB (2022) Editors, sources and the “go back” button: Wikipedia’s framework for beating misinformation. First Monday27: fm.v27i11.12754.
4.
BelenzonSSchankermanM (2015) Motivation and sorting of human capital in open innovation. Strategic Management Journal36(6): 795–820.
5.
BenklerY (2006) The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
6.
BenklerYShawAHillBM (2015) Peer production: A form of collective intelligence. In: MaloneTWBernsteinMS (eds) Handbook of Collective Intelligence. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 175–204.
7.
BryantSLForteABruckmanA (2005) Becoming Wikipedian: transformation of participation in a collaborative online encyclopedia. In: Proceedings of the 2005 International ACM SIGGROUP Conference on Supporting Group Work, Sanibel Island, FL, 6–9 November, pp. 1–10. New York: ACM.
8.
BudhathokiNRHaythornthwaiteC (2013) Motivation for open collaboration: Crowd and community models and the case of OpenStreetMap. American Behavioral Scientist57(5): 548–575.
9.
ChampionKHillBM (2021) Underproduction: an approach for measuring risk in open source software. In: 2021 IEEE International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering (SANER), Honolulu, HI, 9–12 March, pp. 388–399. New York: IEEE.
10.
ChatterjeeAGuizaniMStevensC, et al. (2021) AID: An automated detector for gender-inclusivity bugs in OSS project pages. In: 2021 IEEE/ACM 43rd International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), Madrid, 22–30 May, pp. 1423–1435. New York: IEEE.
11.
CoelhoJValenteMTSilvaLL, et al. (2018) Why we engage in FLOSS: Answers from core developers. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering, Gothenburg, 27 May, pp. 114–121. New York: ACM.
12.
EghbalN (2016) Roads and Bridges: The Unseen Labor Behind Our Digital Infrastructure. New York: Ford Foundation.
13.
EvansSMabeyJMandibergM (2015) Editing for equality: The outcomes of the art+feminism Wikipedia edit-a-thons. Art Documentation: Journal of the Art Libraries Society of North America34(2): 194–203.
14.
FaričNPottsHW (2014) Motivations for contributing to health-related articles on Wikipedia: An interview study. Journal of Medical Internet Research16(12): e260.
15.
FordHPensaIDevouardF, et al. (2018) Beyond notification: Filling gaps in peer production projects. New Media & Society20(10): 3799–3817.
16.
ForteAAndalibiNGreenstadtR (2017) Privacy, anonymity, and perceived risk in open collaboration: a study of Tor users and Wikipedians. In: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing, Portland, OR, 25 February–1 March, pp. 1800–1811.
17.
GallagherKFioravantiMKozaitisS (2019) Teaching software maintenance. In: 2019 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution (ICSME), Cleveland, OH, 29 September–4 October, pp. 353–362. New York: IEEE.
18.
GermonprezMLippsJGogginsS (2019) The rising tide: Open source’s steady transformation. First Monday24(8): fm.v24i8.9297.
19.
HalfakerA (2017) Interpolating quality dynamics in Wikipedia and demonstrating the Keilana effect. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Symposium on Open Collaboration, Galway, 23–25 August, pp. 1–9. New York: ACM.
20.
HalfakerAMorganJSarabadaniA, et al. (2016) ORES: Facilitating Re-Mediation of Wikipedia’s Socio-Technical Problems. San Francisco, CA: Wikimedia Research.
21.
HerfortBLautenbachSPorto de AlbuquerqueJ, et al. (2023) A spatio-temporal analysis investigating completeness and inequalities of global urban building data in OpenStreetMap. Nature Communications14(1): 3985.
22.
HilderbrandCPerdriauCLetawL, et al. (2020) Engineering gender-inclusivity into software: ten teams’ tales from the trenches. In: Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE 42nd International Conference on Software Engineering, Seoul, South Korea, 27 June–19 July, pp. 433–444. New York: ACM.
23.
HillBMShawA (2013) The Wikipedia gender gap revisited: Characterizing survey response bias with propensity score estimation. PLoS ONE8(6): e65782.
24.
HillBMShawA (2021) The hidden costs of requiring accounts: Quasi-experimental evidence from peer production. Communication Research48(6): 771–795.
25.
HouttiMJohnsonITerveenL (2023) Leveraging recommender systems to reduce content gaps on peer production platforms. arXiv [preprint]. Available at: http://arxiv.org/abs/2307.08669 (accessed 30 January 2024).
26.
HouttiMJohnsonICepedaJ, et al. (2022) “We need a woman in music”: Exploring Wikipedia’s values on article priority. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction6: 1–28.
27.
KarczewskaA (2023) GLAM WikiProjects as a form of organization of cooperation between Wikipedia and cultural institutions. European Conference on Knowledge Management24(1): 619–627.
28.
KoniecznyP (2012) Wikis and Wikipedia as a teaching tool: five years later. First Monday. Epub ahead of print 25 August. DOI: 10.5210/fm.v0i0.3583.
29.
KrautREResnickPKieslerS (2012) Building Successful Online Communities: Evidence-Based Social Design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
30.
KrishnamurthySOuSTripathiAK (2014) Acceptance of monetary rewards in open source software development. Research Policy43(4): 632–644.
31.
KuznetsovS (2006) Motivations of contributors to Wikipedia. ACM SIGCAS Computers and Society36: 1215943.
32.
LangrockIGonzález-BailónS (2022) The gender divide in Wikipedia: quantifying and assessing the impact of two feminist interventions. Journal of Communication72: 297–321.
MarchLDasguptaS (2020) Wikipedia edit-a-thons as sites of public pedagogy. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction4: 1–26.
35.
McDowellZJVetterMA (2022) Wikipedia as open educational practice: Experiential learning, critical information literacy, and social justice. Social Media + Society8(1): 20563051221078224.
36.
McMahonCJohnsonILHechtBJ (2017) The substantial interdependence of Wikipedia and Google: a case study on the relationship between peer production communities and information technologies. International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media11: 142–151.
37.
MengBWuF (2013) COMMONS/COMMODITY: peer production caught in the Web of the commercial market. Information, Communication & Society16(1): 125–145.
38.
MorganJTHalfakerA (2018) Evaluating the impact of the Wikipedia Teahouse on newcomer socialization and retention. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Symposium on Open Collaboration, Paris, 22–24 August, pp. 201–207. New York: ACM.
39.
OregSNovO (2008) Exploring motivations for contributing to open source initiatives: The roles of contribution context and personal values. Computers in Human Behavior24(5): 2055–2073.
40.
PancieraKHalfakerATerveenL (2009) Wikipedians are born, not made: a study of power editors on Wikipedia. In: Proceedings of the ACM 2009 International Conference on Supporting Group Work, Sanibel Island, FL, 10–13 May, pp. 51–60. New York: ACM.
41.
PreeceJShneidermanB (2009) The reader-to-leader framework: motivating technology-mediated social participation. AIS Transactions on Human-Computer Interaction1(1): 13–32.
42.
QiuHSZhaoZHYuTK, et al. (2023) Gender representation among contributors to open-source infrastructure: an analysis of 20 package manager ecosystems. In: 2023 IEEE/ACM 45th International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Society (ICSE-SEIS), Melbourne VIC, Australia, 14–20 May, pp. 180–187. New York: IEEE.
43.
RafaeliSArielY (2008) Online motivational factors: Incentives for participation and contribution in Wikipedia. In: BarakA (ed.) Psychological Aspects of Cyberspace: Theory, Research, Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 243–267.
44.
RestivoMVan de RijtA (2014) No praise without effort: Experimental evidence on how rewards affect Wikipedia’s contributor community. Information, Communication & Society17(4): 1–12.
45.
SarkarSWaldman-BrownACleggS (2023) A digital ecosystem as an institutional field: Curated peer production as a response to institutional voids revealed by COVID-19. R&D Management53(4): 695–708.
46.
SchmahlKGVieringTJMakrodimitrisS, et al. (2020) Is Wikipedia succeeding in reducing gender bias? Assessing changes in gender bias in Wikipedia using word embeddings. In: Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Natural Language Processing and Computational Social Science, 20 November, pp. 94–103. Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
47.
ShahSK (2006) Motivation, governance, and the viability of hybrid forms in open source software development. Management Science52(7): 1000–1014.
48.
ShawAHillBM (2014) Laboratories of oligarchy? How the iron law extends to peer production. Journal of Communication64(2): 215–238.
49.
SilvaJOWieseIGermanDM, et al. (2020) Google summer of code: Student motivations and contributions. Journal of Systems and Software162: 110487.
50.
TanXZhouMSunZ (2020) A first look at good first issues on GitHub. In: Proceedings of the 28th ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, Virtual Event, 8–13 November, pp. 398–409. New York: ACM.
51.
Thebault-SpiekerJHechtBTerveenL (2018) Geographic biases are ‘born, not made’: Exploring contributors’ spatiotemporal behavior in OpenStreetMap. In: Proceedings of the 2018 ACM Conference on Supporting Group Work, Sanibel Island, FL, 7–10 January, pp. 71–82. New York: ACM.
52.
TracyPECarkinDM (2014) Adjusting for design effects in disproportionate stratified sampling designs through weighting. Crime & Delinquency60(2): 306–325.
53.
TripodiF (2023) Ms. Categorized: Gender, notability, and inequality on Wikipedia. New Media & Society25: 1687–1707.
54.
WangLLiRZhuJ, et al. (2021) A large-scale empirical study of COVID-19 themed GitHub repositories. In: 2021 IEEE 45th Annual Computers, Software, and Applications Conference (COMPSAC), Madrid, 12–16 July, pp. 914–923. New York: IEEE.
55.
Warncke-WangMRanjanVTerveenL, et al. (2015) Misalignment between supply and demand of quality content in peer production communities. Proceedings of the Ninth International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media9: 493–502.
56.
WilfahrtMMichelitchK (2022) Improving open-source information on African politics, one student at a time. PS: Political Science & Politics55(2): 450–455.
57.
WillerR (2009) A status theory of collective action. Advances in Group Processes26: 133–163.
58.
WuC-GGerlachJHYoungCE (2007) An empirical analysis of open source software developers’ motivations and continuance intentions. Information & Management44(3): 253–262.
59.
XingJVetterM (2020) Editing for equity: understanding instructor motivations for integrating cross-disciplinary Wikipedia assignments. First Monday25: fm.v25i6.10575.
60.
XuBLiD (2015) An empirical study of the motivations for content contribution and community participation in Wikipedia. Information & Management52(3): 275–286.
61.
YangH-LLaiC-Y (2010) Motivations of Wikipedia content contributors. Computers in Human Behavior26(6): 1377–1383.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
