Online Communities, Teams Characteristics, and Knowledge Quality

  • Amira RezguiEmail author
  • Nicolas Jullien
Conference paper
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 480)


Understanding the characteristics of a “good” team and members diversity affects the outcomes group in a question of growing importance for the organizations, for their competitive advantage relies more and more on innovation, produced by virtual cooperation on knowledge production. In this study, we propose a method to forecast the future quality of an online knowledge production community -or online epistemic community- by studying the composition of the group who initiated them (the “core members” of, in this case, an article). First, we set a team building period which is defined as the period of 120 days after article creation in order to construct this “core members” group. Second, we explore the effects on article quality of both group and member diversity. Core members’ characteristics are learned from their previous behavior. The analysis is based on the French Wikipedia project. Our results show that the most important attributes of initial core member to have a high quality article are average reputation, diversity’s contribution, participation, and group size. We also find no significant effects of experience diversity and reputation during the team building period.


Wikipedia Epistemic community Article quality Characteristics of the team Core member Group composition Diversity 


  1. 1.
    Cohendet, P., Creplet, F., Dupouët, O.: Communities of practice and epistemic communities: a renewed approach of organisational learning within the RM. In: Workshop on Economics and Heterogeneous Interacting Agents (2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rullani, F., Haefliger, S.: The periphery on stage: the intra-organizational dynamics in online communities of creation. Res. Policy 42(4), 941–953 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Roberts, J.A., Hann, I.-H., Slaughter, S.A.: Understanding the motivations, participation, and performance of open source software developers: a longitudinal study of the apache projects. Manag. Sci. 52(7), 984–999 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Butler, B., Joyce, E., Pike, J.: Don’t look now, but we’ve created a bureaucracy: the nature and roles of policies and rules in Wikipedia. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, p. 1101. ACM (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Stewart, K.J., Gosain, S.: The impact of ideology on effectiveness in open source software development teams. MIS Q. 30, 291–314 (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Daniel, S.L., Diamant, E.I.: Network effects in OSS development: the impact of users and developers on project performance. In: ICIS 2008 Proceedings, p. 122 (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Grewal, R., Lilien, G.L., Mallapragada, G.: Location, location, location: how network embeddedness affects project success in open source systems. Manag. Sci. 52(7), 1043–1056 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bagozzi, R.P., Dholakia, U.M.: Open source software user communities: a study of participation in Linux user groups. Manag. Sci. 52(7), 1099–1115 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ren, Y., Chen, J., Riedl, J.: The impact and evolution of group diversity in online open collaboration. Manag. Sci. 62, 1668–1686 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hess, C., Ostrom, E.: Understanding Knowledge as a Commons. From Theory to Practice. MIT Press, Cambridge (2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Horwitz, S.K., Horwitz, I.B.: The effects of team diversity on team outcomes: a meta-analytic review of team demography. J. Manag. 33(6), 987–1015 (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tan, Y., Mookerjee, V., Singh, P.: Social capital, structural holes and team composition: collaborative networks of the open source software community. In: ICIS 2007 Proceedings, p. 155 (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Arazy, O., Nov, O., Patterson, R., Yeo, L.: Information quality in Wikipedia: the effects of group composition and task conflict. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 27(4), 71–98 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mathieu, J., Maynard, M.T., Rapp, T., Gilson, L.: Team effectiveness 1997–2007: a review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. J. Manag. 34(3), 410–476 (2008)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Moreland, R.L., Levine, J.M.: Group composition: explaining similarities and differences among group members. In: The Sage Handbook of Social Psychology, pp. 367–380. Sage, Beverly Hills (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Moreland, R.L., Levine, J.M., Wingert, M.L.: Creating the ideal group: composition effects at work. Underst. Group Behav. 2, 11–35 (2013)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Crowston, K., Wei, K., Li, Q., Howison, J.: Core and periphery in free/libre and open source software team communications. In: Proceedings of the 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2006, HICSS 2006, vol. 6, p. 118a. IEEE (2006)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bosu, A., Carver, J.C.: Impact of developer reputation on code review outcomes in OSS projects: an empirical investigation. In: Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, p. 33. ACM (2014)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Surowiecki, J.: The Wisdom of Crowds. Anchor, Garden City (2005)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yang, W., Liu, W., Viña, A., Tuanmu, M.-N., He, G., Dietz, T., Liu, J.: Nonlinear effects of group size on collective action and resource outcomes. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 110(27), 10916–10921 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wang, L.S., Chen, J., Ren, Y., Riedl, J.: Searching for the goldilocks zone: trade-offs in managing online volunteer groups. In: Proceedings of the ACM 2012 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, pp. 989–998. ACM (2012)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Stein, K., Hess, C.: Does it matter who contributes: a study on featured articles in the German Wikipedia. In: Proceedings of the Eighteenth Conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia, pp. 171–174. ACM (2007)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Anthony, D., Smith, S.W., Williamson, T.: Reputation and reliability in collective goods the case of the online Encyclopedia Wikipedia. Ration. Soc. 21(3), 283–306 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ortega, F.: Wikipedia: a quantitative analysis. Ph.D. thesis, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, Madrid, (Cit. on p.) (2009)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Chen, J., Ren, Y., Riedl, J.: The effects of diversity on group productivity and member withdrawal in online volunteer groups. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 821–830. ACM (2010)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zhang, X.M., Zhu, F.: Group size and incentives to contribute: a natural experiment at Chinese Wikipedia. Am. Econ. Rev. 101, 07–22 (2010)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bedeian, A.G., Mossholder, K.W.: On the use of the coefficient of variation as a measure of diversity. Organ. Res. Methods 3(3), 285–297 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Aaltonen, A., Seiler, S.: Cumulative growth in user-generated content production: evidence from Wikipedia. Manag. Sci. 62, 2054–2069 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Breiman, L.: Random forests. Mach. Learn. 45(1), 5–32 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Telecom Bretagne-UBL, M@rsouin-LEGOBrestFrance

Personalised recommendations