Hostname: page-component-7b9c58cd5d-f9bf7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-16T16:18:11.033Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Externalities in knowledge production: evidence from a randomized field experiment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2025

Marit Hinnosaar ,
Toomas Hinnosaar Open the ORCID record for Toomas Hinnosaar [Opens in a new window] ,
Michael E. Kummer  and
Olga Slivko
Marit Hinnosaar*
Affiliation:
University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK Collegio Carlo Alberto, Turin, Italy CEPR, London, UK
Toomas Hinnosaar*
Affiliation:
University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK CEPR, London, UK
Michael E. Kummer*
Affiliation:
University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, USA ZEW, Mannheim, Germany
Olga Slivko*
Affiliation:
Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
*
marit.hinnosaar@gmail.com
toomas@hinnosaar.net
M.Kummer@uea.ac.uk
slivko@rsm.nl
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Are there positive or negative externalities in knowledge production? We analyze whether current contributions to knowledge production increase or decrease the future growth of knowledge. To assess this, we use a randomized field experiment that added content to some pages in Wikipedia while leaving similar pages unchanged. We compare subsequent content growth over the next 4 years between the treatment and control groups. Our estimates allow us to rule out effects on 4-year growth of content length larger than twelve percent. We can also rule out effects on 4-year growth of content quality larger than four points, which is less than one-fifth of the size of the treatment itself. The treatment increased editing activity in the first 2 years, but most of these edits only modified the text added by the treatment. Our results have implications for information seeding and incentivizing contributions. They imply that additional content may inspire future contributions in the short- and medium-term but do not generate large externalities in the long term.

Keywords

Knowledge accumulationUser-generated contentWikipediaPublic goods provisionField experimentL17L86C93
Type
Original Paper
Information
Experimental Economics , Volume 25 , Issue 2 , April 2022 , pp. 706 - 733
Copyright
Copyright © 2021 Economic Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-021-09730-x.

Data and code for this article are available in Hinnosaar et al. (2021a), Harvard Dataverse, https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/T4VFCX.

References

Aaltonen, A, & Seiler, S (2016). Cumulative growth in user-generated content production: Evidence from Wikipedia. Management Science, 62, 2054–2069. 10.1287/mnsc.2015.2253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Algan, Y., Benkler, Y., Morell, M. F., & Hergueux, J. (2013). Cooperation in a peer production economy experimental evidence from Wikipedia, manuscript.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ayres, I, Raseman, S, & Shih, A (2013). Evidence from two large field experiments that peer comparison feedback can reduce residential energy usage. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 29, 992–1022. 10.1093/jleo/ews020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, Y., Farzan, R., Kraut, R. E., YeckehZaare, I., & Zhang, A. F. (2019). Motivating contributions to public information goods: A personalized field experiment on Wikipedia, manuscript.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, Y, Harper, FM, Konstan, J, & Li, SX (2010). Social comparisons and contributions to online communities: A field experiment on movie lens. American Economic Review, 100, 1358–98 10.1257/aer.100.4.1358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Giorgi, G, Pellizzari, M, & Redaelli, S (2010). Identification of social interactions through partially overlapping peer groups. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 2, 241–75.Google Scholar
Duflo, E, & Saez, E (2002). Participation and investment decisions in a retirement plan: The influence of colleagues’ choices. Journal of Public Economics, 85, 121–148. 10.1016/S0047-2727(01)00098-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duflo, E, & Saez, E (2003). The role of information and social interactions in retirement plan decisions: Evidence from a randomized experiment. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118, 815–842. 10.1162/00335530360698432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egebark, J, & Ekström, M (2017). Liking what others “like”: Using Facebook to identify determinants of conformity. Experimental Economics, 21, 1–22.Google Scholar
Eurobarometer. (2012). Europeans and their languages, special report 386. European Commission.Google Scholar
Fershtman, C, & Gandal, N (2011). Direct and indirect knowledge spillovers: The “social network” of open-source projects. RAND Journal of Economics, 42, 70–91. 10.1111/j.1756-2171.2010.00126.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallus, J (2017). Fostering public good contributions with symbolic awards: A large-scale natural field experiment at Wikipedia. Management Science, 63, 3999–4015. 10.1287/mnsc.2016.2540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, NJ, Cialdini, RB, & Griskevicius, V (2008). A room with a viewpoint: Using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels. Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 472–482. 10.1086/586910CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenstein, S., & Zhu, F. (2012). Is Wikipedia biased? In. American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings (pp. 343–348).Google Scholar
Greenstein, S, & Zhu, F (2018). Do experts or crowd-based models produce more bias? Evidence from Encyclopedia Britannica and Wikipedia. MIS Quarterly, 42, 945–959. 10.25300/MISQ/2018/14084CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grossman, GM, & Helpman, E (1993). Innovation and growth in the global economy, MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hanushek, EA, Kain, JF, Markman, JM, & Rivkin, SG (2003). Does peer ability affect student achievement?. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 18, 527–544. 10.1002/jae.741CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinnosaar, M (2019). Gender inequality in new media: Evidence from Wikipedia. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 163, 262–276. 10.1016/j.jebo.2019.04.020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinnosaar, M, Hinnosaar, T, Kummer, M, & Slivko, O (2021). Replication data for: “Externalities in knowledge production: Evidence from a randomized field experiment”. Harvard Dataverse, 10.7910/DVN/T4VFCXGoogle Scholar
Hinnosaar, M, Hinnosaar, T, Kummer, M, & Slivko, O (2021). Wikipedia matters. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 163, 1–13.Google Scholar
Hinnosaar, T. (2018). Optimal sequential contests, manuscript.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, N, Burtch, G, Gu, B, Hong, Y, Liang, C, Wang, K, Fu, D, & Yang, B (2018). Motivating user generated content with performance feedback: Evidence from randomized field experiments. Management Science, 65, 327–345. 10.1287/mnsc.2017.2944CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, CI (1995). R&D-based models of economic growth. Journal of Political Economy, 103, 759–784. 10.1086/262002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, D, Molitor, D, & Reif, J (2019). What do workplace wellness programs do? Evidence from the Illinois workplace wellness study. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 134, 1747–1791. 10.1093/qje/qjz023CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kane, GC, & Ransbotham, S (2016). Content as community regulator: The recursive relationship between consumption and contribution in open collaboration communities. Organization Science, 27, 1258–1274. 10.1287/orsc.2016.1075CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiyotaki, N, & Wright, R (1989). On money as a medium of exchange. Journal of Political Economy, 97, 927–954. 10.1086/261634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kummer, M. (2020). Attention in the peer production of user generated content: Evidence from 93 pseudo-experiments on Wikipedia, manuscript.Google Scholar
Kummer, M, Slivko, O, & Zhang, X (2019). Unemployment and digital public goods contribution. Information Systems Research, 31, 801–819. 10.1287/isre.2019.0916CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lacetera, N, & Macis, M (2010). Social image concerns and prosocial behavior: Field evidence from a nonlinear incentive scheme. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 76, 225–237. 10.1016/j.jebo.2010.08.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lerner, J, & Tirole, J (2003). Some simple economics of open source. Journal of Industrial Economics, 50, 197–234. 10.1111/1467-6451.00174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manski, CF (1993). Identification of endogenous social effects: The reflection problem. Review of Economic Studies, 60, 531–542. 10.2307/2298123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagaraj, A. (2019). Information seeding and knowledge production in online communities: Evidence from OpenStreetMap, manuscript.Google Scholar
Nov, O (2007). What motivates Wikipedians?. Communications of the ACM, 50, 60–64. 10.1145/1297797.1297798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olivera, F, Goodman, PS, & Tan, SS-L (2008). Contribution behaviors in distributed environments. MIS Quarterly, 32, 23–42. 10.2307/25148827CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porter, MF (1980). An algorithm for suffix stripping. Program, 14, 130–137. 10.1108/eb046814CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ransbotham, S, Kane, GC, & Lurie, NH (2012). Network characteristics and the value of collaborative user-generated content. Marketing Science, 31, 387–405. 10.1287/mksc.1110.0684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ren, Y, Chen, J, & Riedl, J (2015). The impact and evolution of group diversity in online open collaboration. Management Science, 62, 1668–1686. 10.1287/mnsc.2015.2178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romer, PM (1990). Endogenous technological change. Journal of Political Economy, 98, S71–S102. 10.1086/261725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salganik, MJ, Dodds, PS, & Watts, DJ (2006). Experimental study of inequality and unpredictability in an artificial cultural market. Science, 311, 854–856. 10.1126/science.1121066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shah, SK (2006). Motivation, governance, and the viability of hybrid forms in open source software development. Management Science, 52, 1000–1014. 10.1287/mnsc.1060.0553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slivko, O. (2018). Online “brain gain”: Do immigrants return knowledge home?. manuscript.Google Scholar
Sun, Y, Dong, X, & McIntyre, S (2017). Motivation of user-generated content: Social connectedness moderates the effects of monetary rewards. Marketing Science, 36, 329–337. 10.1287/mksc.2016.1022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, N., & Hanley, D. (2018). Science is shaped by Wikipedia: Evidence from a randomized control trial, manuscript.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84, 327–352. 10.1037/0033-295X.84.4.327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westfall, PH, & Young, SS (1993). Resampling-based multiple testing: Examples and methods for p-value adjustment, Wiley.Google Scholar
Xu, SX, & Zhang, X (2013). Impact of Wikipedia on market information environment: Evidence on management disclosure and investor reaction. MIS Quarterly, 37, 1043–1068. 10.25300/MISQ/2013/37.4.03CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, X, & Zhu, F (2011). Group size and incentives to contribute: A natural experiment at Chinese Wikipedia. American Economic Review, 101, 1601–1615. 10.1257/aer.101.4.1601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhu, K, Walker, D, & Muchnik, L (2020). Content growth and attention contagion in information networks: A natural experiment on Wikipedia. Information Systems Research, 31, 491–509. 10.1287/isre.2019.0899CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Hinnosaar et al. supplementary material

Online Appendix for “Externalities in Knowledge Production: Evidence from a Randomized Field Experiment” at Experimental Economics
Download Hinnosaar et al. supplementary material(File)
File 990.2 KB