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.

Platform owners sometimes enter complementors' product spaces to compete against them directly. Prior studies have offered two possible explanations for such entries: platform owners may target the most successful complementors so as to appropriate value from their innovations, or they may target poor performing complementors to improve the platforms' overall quality. Using data from Amazon.com, we analyze the patterns of Amazon's entry into its third-party sellers' product spaces. We find evidence consistent with the former explanation: the likelihood of Amazon's entry is positively correlated with the popularity and customer ratings of third-party sellers' products. We also find that Amazon's entry reduces the shipping costs of affected products and hence increases demand. Results also show that small third-party sellers affected by Amazon's entry appear to be discouraged from growing their businesses on the platform subsequently. The results have implications for complementors participating in various platform-based markets.

An Israeli startup founded in 2014, Zebra Medical Vision developed algorithms that produced diagnoses from X-rays, mammograms, and CT-scans. The algorithms used deep learning and digitized radiology scans to create software that could assist doctors in making diagnoses. By July 2018, Zebra had developed seven algorithms to analyze scans for emphysema, liver density, compression fractures, bone density, brain bleeds, breast cancer, and a calcium score used to detect calcified plaque in coronary arteries. For each scan analyzed, Zebra charged hospitals $1. By 2018 Zebra found itself in a race with its competitors to perfect these algorithms, create software tools, distribute the tools to physician partners, and create a market. Zebra already had several partners in the U.S. and Europe who gave feedback on its development. Management had to answer the following questions: What should they do next at Zebra? Should they work on the accuracy of the already developed algorithms or continue to develop many new tools? If they chose to develop new products, which applications should they address? And how should they go to market?

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.

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