Do Experts or Crowd-Based Models Produce More Bias? Evidence from Encyclopædia Britannica and Wikipedia

Shane  Greenstein; Feng  Zhu

Article | MIS Quarterly | September 2018

Do Experts or Crowd-Based Models Produce More Bias? Evidence from Encyclopædia Britannica and Wikipedia

Abstract

Organizations today can use both crowds and experts to produce knowledge. While prior work compares the accuracy of crowd-produced and expert-produced knowledge, we compare bias in these two models in the context of contested knowledge, which involves subjective, unverifiable, or controversial information. Using data from Encyclopædia Britannica, authored by experts, and Wikipedia, an encyclopedia produced by an online community, we compare the slant and bias of pairs of articles on identical topics of U.S. politics. Our slant measure is less (more) than zero when an article leans towards Democratic (Republican) viewpoints, while bias is the absolute value of the slant. We find that Wikipedia articles are more slanted towards Democratic views than are Britannica articles, as well as more biased. The difference in bias between a pair of articles decreases with more revisions. The bias on a per word basis hardly differs between the sources because Wikipedia articles tend to be longer than Britannica articles. These results highlight the pros and cons of each knowledge production model, help identify the scope of the empirical generalization of prior studies comparing the information quality of the two production models, and offer implications for organizations managing crowd-based knowledge production.

Keywords: online community; Collective Intelligence; wisdom of crowds; bias; Wikipedia; Britannica; knowledge production; Knowledge Sharing; Knowledge Dissemination; Prejudice and Bias;

Format: Print

Find at Harvard

Citation:

Greenstein, Shane, and Feng Zhu. "Do Experts or Crowd-Based Models Produce More Bias? Evidence from Encyclopædia Britannica and Wikipedia." MIS Quarterly 42, no. 3 (September 2018): 945–959.

This study provides an analysis of the entry strategies of third-party data centers in the United States, an industry with assets worth hundreds of billions of dollars. We examine the market in 2018 and 2019, and compare with the physical entry of private data centers for services on demand, including those known as cloud services. We find evidence that providers of third-party data centers trade off the tensions between buyer distaste for distance, which creates localized demand, and costs of supply, which vary with density. We find considerable evidence that localized demand and economies of scale shape entry decisions. We conclude that data centers display tendencies towards urban-biased technical change, and cloud services mildly work to ameliorate such biases. We see little evidence to suggest data centers will spread to any but a small number of low density locations.

In this paper we examine Intel’s launch of Centrino and interpret it as platform leader’s attempt to restructure a supply chain. We provide a narrative of key actions and how they coordinated changes and offer a framework of the predictable consequences for complementary markets. We then collect data and test these predictions on outcomes in several related complementary markets. The overall findings are consistent with our framework. We show that the launch of Centrino increased the likelihood of exit from internal and external Wi-Fi cards markets, and we find that the magnitude of the effect was largest for internal cards. We also show that the launch of Centrino stimulated product introduction in the markets for complements overall and find that the effect varied across type of routers. Finally, we show that experience with producing Wi-Fi cards shaped product introduction by router providers.

Faculty & Research

Do Experts or Crowd-Based Models Produce More Bias? Evidence from Encyclopædia Britannica and Wikipedia

Abstract

Citation:

About the Authors

More from these Authors