Peer Effects in Collaborative Content Generation: The Evidence from German Wikipedia

Abstract

Die Dis cus si on Pape rs die nen einer mög lichst schnel len Ver brei tung von neue ren For schungs arbei ten des ZEW. Die Bei trä ge lie gen in allei ni ger Ver ant wor tung der Auto ren und stel len nicht not wen di ger wei se die Mei nung des ZEW dar.Dis cus si on Papers are inten ded to make results of ZEW research prompt ly avai la ble to other eco no mists in order to encou ra ge dis cus si on and sug gesti ons for revi si ons. The aut hors are sole ly respon si ble for the con tents which do not neces sa ri ly repre sent the opi ni on of the ZEW. , Abstract On Wikipedia, the largest online encyclopedia, editors who contribute to the same articles and exchange comments on articles' talk pages work in collaborative manner engaging in communication about their work. Thus they can be considered as peers who are likely to influence each other. In this article, I examine whether the activity of these peers, measured by the average amount of peer contributions or by the number of peers, yields spillovers to the amount of contributions by individuals. The partially overlapping group structure allows to identify peer e↵ects and to use the number of the indirect peers as an instrument for the activity and the number of direct peers. The results show that, while controlling for observable editor and peer characteristics, an increase in the monthly average peer contribution by 1 per cent increases the amount of individual monthly contributions to Wikipedia (among individuals that contribute to Wikipedia every month) by up to 0.4 per cent. Similarly, spillovers coming from the number of peers yield a positive e↵ect of 0.17 per cent per article to 0.05 per cent for overall monthly contributions to Wikipedia.Keywords: Peer e↵ects; user-generated content; Wikipedia; network of editors; direct and indirect peers.

Assimilate or Differentiate? Contributors’ Choice of Subjects in User‐Generated Content

“…However, there is a significant difference between contribution to specific subjects and overall contribution. The latter has been extensively researched in the UGC literature (e.g., Chen et al, 2010;Goes et al, 2014;Slivko, 2014). The UGC literature shows that users' contributing decisions are affected by characteristics of the subjects (Dellarocas & Narayan, 2006;Dellarocas et al, 2010;Berger & Milkman, 2012) and contributor characteristics (Moe & Schweidel, 2012;Rui & Whinston, 2012;Goes et al, 2014;Wang et al, 2017).…”

“…The UGC literature shows that users' contributing decisions are affected by characteristics of the subjects (Dellarocas & Narayan, 2006;Dellarocas et al, 2010;Berger & Milkman, 2012) and contributor characteristics (Moe & Schweidel, 2012;Rui & Whinston, 2012;Goes et al, 2014;Wang et al, 2017). Among these, several recent studies examine the impact of the number of peers and the number of peer contributions, on users' tendency to contribute (Chen et al, 2010;Goes et al, 2014;Slivko, 2014;Burtch et al, 2018). Specifically, Chen et al (2010) and Slivko (2014) find that the more peers contribute, the more users tend to contribute.…”

“…Among these, several recent studies examine the impact of the number of peers and the number of peer contributions, on users' tendency to contribute (Chen et al, 2010;Goes et al, 2014;Slivko, 2014;Burtch et al, 2018). Specifically, Chen et al (2010) and Slivko (2014) find that the more peers contribute, the more users tend to contribute. Research also finds that people have a higher tendency of contributing to popular subjects (Dellarocas et al, 2010).…”

“…Specifically, Chen et al. () and Slivko () find that the more peers contribute, the more users tend to contribute. Research also finds that people have a higher tendency of contributing to popular subjects (Dellarocas et al., ).…”