Open Content, Linus' Law, and Neutral Point of View

Shane  Greenstein; Feng  Zhu

Article | Information Systems Research | Summer 2016

Open Content, Linus' Law, and Neutral Point of View

Abstract

The diffusion of the Internet and digital technologies has enabled many organizations to use the open-content production model to produce and disseminate knowledge. While several prior studies have shown that the open-content production model can lead to high-quality output in the context of uncontroversial and verifiable information, it is unclear whether this production model will produce any desirable outcome when information is controversial, subjective, and unverifiable. We examine whether the open-content production model helps achieve a neutral point of view (NPOV) using data from Wikipedia's articles on U.S. politics. Our null hypothesis builds on Linus' Law, often expressed as "Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow." Our findings are consistent with a narrow interpretation of Linus' Law, namely, a greater number of contributors to an article makes an article more neutral. No evidence supports a broad interpretation of Linus' Law. Moreover, several empirical facts suggest the law does not shape many articles. The majority of articles receive little attention, and most articles change only mildly from their initial slant. Our study provides the first empirical evidence on the limit of Linus' Law. While many organizations believe that they could improve their knowledge production by leveraging communities, we show that in the case of Wikipedia, there are aspects, such as NPOV, that the community does not always achieve successfully.

Keywords: Prejudice and Bias; Online Technology; Balance and Stability; Operations; Knowledge Management; Knowledge Dissemination;

Format: Print

Find at Harvard

Citation:

Greenstein, Shane, and Feng Zhu. "Open Content, Linus' Law, and Neutral Point of View." Information Systems Research 27, no. 3 (September 2016): 618–635.

In summer 2016, four of Australia’s top five banks petitioned regulators for permission to bargain collectively with Apple over the terms under which they would support its digital wallet, Apple Pay. They argued that doing so would force concessions from Apple that would improve market competitiveness, consumer choice, price transparency, and transaction security for all mobile payments in Australia. The banks stood to benefit as well. If they succeeded in their primary aim of opening the contactless payment functionality of Apple’s devices to their own digital wallets—something Apple had thus far refused in any market it had entered—the banks could retain customer relationships that Apple Pay threatened to usurp and limit Apple’s free-riding on the contactless payment infrastructure the banks had just spent several years building.

Three years after launching his brick-and-mortar store, X Fire Paintball and Airsoft, Steve Herbert Sr. and his sons began selling products on Amazon.com’s third-party Marketplace and online sales expanded rapidly. Over time, X Fire noticed that products of which it had once been the only seller were now being sold by Amazon straight from X Fire’s suppliers, effectively cutting X Fire out. Amazon was also ignoring the minimum advertised price (MAP) set by manufacturers. How should X Fire defend itself? Now Amazon representatives were approaching X Fire to encourage them to sell on Amazon’s smaller but growing Canadian Marketplace. How should X Fire respond to this opportunity?

Faculty & Research

Open Content, Linus' Law, and Neutral Point of View

Abstract

Citation:

About the Authors

More from these Authors