How oversight improves member-maintained communities

ABSTRACT

Online communities need regular maintenance activities such as moderation and data input, tasks that typically fall to community owners. Communities that allow all members to participate in maintenance tasks have the potential to be more robust and valuable. A key challenge in creating member-maintained communities is building interfaces, algorithms, and social structures that encourage people to provide high-quality contributions. We use Karau and Williams' collective effort model to predict how peer and expert editorial oversight affect members' contributions to a movie recommendation website and test these predictions in a field experiment with 87 contributors. Oversight increased both the quantity and quality of contributions while reducing antisocial behavior, and peers were as effective at oversight as experts. We draw design guidelines and suggest avenues for future work from our results.

REFERENCES

• 1: Gerard Beenen , Kimberly Ling , Xiaoqing Wang , Klarissa Chang , Dan Frankowski , Paul Resnick , Robert E. Kraut, Using social psychology to motivate contributions to online communities, Proceedings of the 2004 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work, November 06-10, 2004, Chicago, Illinois, USA [doi>10.1145/1031607.1031642]
• 2: B. Butler, L. Sproull, S. Kiesler, and R. Kraut. Community Building in Online Communities: Who Does the Work and Why? Leadership at a Distance. Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers, Inc., Mahwah, NJ, 2005.
• 3: Dan Cosley , Shyong K. Lam , Istvan Albert , Joseph A. Konstan , John Riedl, Is seeing believing?: how recommender system interfaces affect users' opinions, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, April 05-10, 2003, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, USA [doi>10.1145/642611.642713]
• 4: R. M. Dawes. Social dilemmas. Annual Review of Psychology, 31:169--193, 1980.
• 5: R. M. Dawes and R. H. Thaler. Anomalies: Cooperation. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2(3):187--197, 1988.
• 6: Thomas Erickson , David N. Smith , Wendy A. Kellogg , Mark Laff , John T. Richards , Erin Bradner, Socially translucent systems: social proxies, persistent conversation, and the design of “babble”, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems: the CHI is the limit, p.72-79, May 15-20, 1999, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States [doi>10.1145/302979.302997]
• 7: A. Graycar. Graffiti: Implications for law enforcement, local government and the community. In Graffiti and Disorder: Local Government, Law Enforcement and Community Responses, Brisbane, August 2003.
• 8: G. Hardin. The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162:1243--1248, 1968.
• 9: R. Hardin. Collective Action. Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, 1982.
• 10: S. G. Harkins. Social loafing and social facilitation. Journal of Experimental Social Psych., 23:1--18, 1987.
• 11: S. J. Karau and K. D. Williams. Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(4):681--706, 1993.
• 12: N. L. Kerr. Motivation losses in small groups: a social dilemma analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45:819--828, 1983.
• 13: Cliff Lampe , Paul Resnick, Slash(dot) and burn: distributed moderation in a large online conversation space, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, p.543-550, April 24-29, 2004, Vienna, Austria [doi>10.1145/985692.985761]
• 14: J. Lave. Situating Learning in Communities of Practice. Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition. APA, 1993.
• 15: Pamela J. Ludford , Dan Cosley , Dan Frankowski , Loren Terveen, Think different: increasing online community participation using uniqueness and group dissimilarity, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, p.631-638, April 24-29, 2004, Vienna, Austria [doi>10.1145/985692.985772]
• 16: Jenny Preece, Online Communities: Designing Usability and Supporting Socialbilty, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY, 2000
• 17: Robert D. Putnam, Bowling alone: the collapse and revival of American community, Proceedings of the 2000 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work, p.357, December 2000, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States [doi>10.1145/358916.361990]
• 18: Al Mamunur Rashid , Istvan Albert , Dan Cosley , Shyong K. Lam , Sean M. McNee , Joseph A. Konstan , John Riedl, Getting to know you: learning new user preferences in recommender systems, Proceedings of the 7th international conference on Intelligent user interfaces, January 13-16, 2002, San Francisco, California, USA [doi>10.1145/502716.502737]
• 19: Paul Resnick , Neophytos Iacovou , Mitesh Suchak , Peter Bergstrom , John Riedl, GroupLens: an open architecture for collaborative filtering of netnews, Proceedings of the 1994 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work, p.175-186, October 22-26, 1994, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States [doi>10.1145/192844.192905]
• 20: Paul Resnick , Ko Kuwabara , Richard Zeckhauser , Eric Friedman, Reputation systems, Communications of the ACM, v.43 n.12, p.45-48, Dec. 2000 [doi>10.1145/355112.355122]
• 21: Marc Smith, Tools for navigating large social cyberspaces, Communications of the ACM, v.45 n.4, April 2002 [doi>10.1145/505248.505272]
• 22: B. K. Thorn and T. Connolly. Discretionary data bases: A theory and some experimental findings. Communication Research, 14:512--528, 1987.
• 23: Fernanda B. Viégas , Martin Wattenberg , Kushal Dave, Studying cooperation and conflict between authors with history flow visualizations, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, p.575-582, April 24-29, 2004, Vienna, Austria [doi>10.1145/985692.985765]
• 24: V. H. Vroom. Work and Motivation. Wiley, N.Y., 1964.
• 25: Wikipedia. Wikipedia:about - wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About, 2004.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  H. Information Systems
  H.5 INFORMATION INTERFACES AND PRESENTATION (I.7)
      H.5.3 Group and Organization Interfaces
          Subjects: Collaborative computing

Keywords:
collective effort model, contribution, member-maintained, online communities, oversight, participation, quality