IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/jcsosc/v7y2024i3d10.1007_s42001-024-00321-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Polarized collaboration benefits knowledge production: empirical analyses of the mediating effect of co-production pattern in Wikipedia articles on climate change

Author

Listed:
  • Kunhao Yang

    (Yamaguchi University)

  • Mengyuan Fu

    (Waseda University)

Abstract

The global influence of climate change has become increasingly noticeable during recent years. A deeper understanding of human collective behavior’s role in mitigating climate change necessitates the provision of high-quality knowledge to the public. In the modern society, the Internet has emerged as the primary knowledge source, raising concerns about the quality of information provided by online communities. Understanding the mechanisms of online knowledge co-production is crucial for enhancing information quality. Prior research has highlighted the substantial influence of group-level political polarization on online knowledge production, though there is disagreement about whether its impact is positive or negative. This study proposed the co-production pattern, which reflects how participants with differing political preferences collaborated with each other, as a mediator and analyzed its impacts on co-production process of climate change knowledge in Wikipedia. To this end, the research amassed two datasets including over 1.3 million entries documenting editing behaviors in English-language articles on climate change hosted on Wikipedia, encompassing nearly ten thousand Wikipedia editor teams. The results empirically demonstrated the positive impacts of polarized teams in preventing vandalism and boosting reliability when knowledge co-production occurs between participants with different political viewpoints. These insights suggest strategies for effectively producing and improving climate change knowledge by leveraging polarized online communities.

Suggested Citation

  • Kunhao Yang & Mengyuan Fu, 2024. "Polarized collaboration benefits knowledge production: empirical analyses of the mediating effect of co-production pattern in Wikipedia articles on climate change," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 7(3), pages 2677-2699, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:jcsosc:v:7:y:2024:i:3:d:10.1007_s42001-024-00321-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s42001-024-00321-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s42001-024-00321-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s42001-024-00321-3?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Isaac Waller & Ashton Anderson, 2021. "Quantifying social organization and political polarization in online platforms," Nature, Nature, vol. 600(7888), pages 264-268, December.
    2. repec:cup:judgdm:v:3:y:2008:i::p:317-324 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Dan M. Kahan & Ellen Peters & Maggie Wittlin & Paul Slovic & Lisa Larrimore Ouellette & Donald Braman & Gregory Mandel, 2012. "The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 2(10), pages 732-735, October.
    4. Dan M. Kahan & Hank Jenkins-Smith & Donald Braman, 2011. "Cultural cognition of scientific consensus," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(2), pages 147-174, February.
    5. Feng Shi & Misha Teplitskiy & Eamon Duede & James A. Evans, 2019. "The wisdom of polarized crowds," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 3(4), pages 329-336, April.
    6. Steffen Kallbekken, 2023. "Research on public support for climate policy instruments must broaden its scope," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 13(3), pages 206-208, March.
    7. Kunhao Yang & Itsuki Fujisaki & Kazuhiro Ueda, 2020. "Interplay of network structure and neighbour performance in user innovation," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 6(1), pages 1-8, December.
    8. Tara J. Crandon & James G. Scott & Fiona J. Charlson & Hannah J. Thomas, 2022. "A social–ecological perspective on climate anxiety in children and adolescents," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 12(2), pages 123-131, February.
    9. Max Falkenberg & Alessandro Galeazzi & Maddalena Torricelli & Niccolò Di Marco & Francesca Larosa & Madalina Sas & Amin Mekacher & Warren Pearce & Fabiana Zollo & Walter Quattrociocchi & Andrea Baronc, 2022. "Growing polarization around climate change on social media," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 12(12), pages 1114-1121, December.
    10. Heimeriks, Gaston & van den Besselaar, Peter & Frenken, Koen, 2008. "Digital disciplinary differences: An analysis of computer-mediated science and 'Mode 2' knowledge production," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(9), pages 1602-1615, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Donatella Baiardi, 2021. "What do you think about climate change?," Working Papers 477, University of Milano-Bicocca, Department of Economics, revised Aug 2021.
    2. Baiardi, Donatella & Morana, Claudio, 2021. "Climate change awareness: Empirical evidence for the European Union," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    3. Joanna K. Huxster & Matthew H. Slater & Asheley R. Landrum, 2021. "The Development and Validation of the Social Enterprise of Science Index (SESI): An Instrument to Measure Grasp of the Social-Institutional Aspects of Science," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(2), pages 21582440211, May.
    4. Bertoli, Paola & Grembi, Veronica & Morelli, Massimo & Rosso, Anna Cecilia, 2023. "In medio stat virtus? Effective communication and preferences for redistribution in hard times," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 214(C), pages 105-147.
    5. Dan M. Kahan & Hank Jenkins-Smith & Tor Tarantola & Carol L. Silva & Donald Braman, 2015. "Geoengineering and Climate Change Polarization," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 658(1), pages 192-222, March.
    6. Jessica E. Hughes & James D. Sauer & Aaron Drummond & Laura E. Brumby & Matthew A. Palmer, 2023. "Endorsement of scientific inquiry promotes better evaluation of climate policy evidence," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 176(6), pages 1-20, June.
    7. Grant R. McDermott, 2021. "Skeptic priors and climate consensus," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 166(1), pages 1-23, May.
    8. Cafferata, Alessia & Dávila-Fernández, Marwil J. & Sordi, Serena, 2021. "Seeing what can(not) be seen: Confirmation bias, employment dynamics and climate change," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 567-586.
    9. Toby Bolsen & James N. Druckman & Fay Lomax Cook, 2015. "Citizens’, Scientists’, and Policy Advisors’ Beliefs about Global Warming," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 658(1), pages 271-295, March.
    10. Savadori, Lucia & Lauriola, Marco, 2022. "Risk perceptions and COVID-19 protective behaviors: A two-wave longitudinal study of epidemic and post-epidemic periods," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 301(C).
    11. Sander Linden & Anthony Leiserowitz & Geoffrey Feinberg & Edward Maibach, 2014. "How to communicate the scientific consensus on climate change: plain facts, pie charts or metaphors?," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 126(1), pages 255-262, September.
    12. Fang, Ximeng & Innocenti, Stefania, 2023. "Increasing the acceptability of carbon taxation: The role of social norms and economic reasoning," INET Oxford Working Papers 2023-25, Institute for New Economic Thinking at the Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford.
    13. Donatella Baiardi, 2021. "What do you think about climate change?," Working Paper series 21-16, Rimini Centre for Economic Analysis.
    14. Max Falkenberg & Fabiana Zollo & Walter Quattrociocchi & Jürgen Pfeffer & Andrea Baronchelli, 2024. "Patterns of partisan toxicity and engagement reveal the common structure of online political communication across countries," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-13, December.
    15. Maciel, Marcelo V. & Martins, André C.R., 2020. "Ideologically motivated biases in a multiple issues opinion model," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 553(C).
    16. Branden B. Johnson & Brendon Swedlow, 2021. "Cultural Theory's Contributions to Risk Analysis: A Thematic Review with Directions and Resources for Further Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 429-455, March.
    17. Antony Millner & Hélène Ollivier, 2016. "Beliefs, Politics, and Environmental Policy," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 10(2), pages 226-244.
    18. Andrew Tracy & Amy Javernick-Will, 2020. "Credible Sources of Information Regarding Induced Seismicity," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-19, March.
    19. Martin-Gutierrez, Samuel & Losada, Juan C. & Benito, Rosa M., 2023. "Multipolar social systems: Measuring polarization beyond dichotomous contexts," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    20. Muradian, Roldan & Pascual, Unai, 2020. "Ecological economics in the age of fear," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:jcsosc:v:7:y:2024:i:3:d:10.1007_s42001-024-00321-3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.