Managing Users’ Behaviors on Open Content Crowdsourcing Platform

References

• Brabham DC. 2008. Crowdsourcing as a model for problem solving: an introduction and cases. Convergence. 14(1):75–90. doi:10.1177/1354856507084420.
   Google Scholar
• Au CH, He W 2014. Using wiki for project collaboration-with comparison on facebook. Paper presented at: Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering and Computer Science 2014; San Francisco.
   Google Scholar
• Maqsud U, Arnold S, Hülfenhaus M, Akbik A 2014. Nerdle: topic-specific question answering using wikia seeds. Paper presented at: COLING 2014, the 25th International Conference on Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations; Dublin, Ireland.
   Google Scholar
• Saxton GD, Oh O, Kishore R. 2013. Rules of crowdsourcing: models, issues, and systems of control. Information Systems Management. 30(1):2–20. doi:10.1080/10580530.2013.739883.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zuchowski O, Posegga O, Schlagwein D, Fischbach K. 2016. Internal crowdsourcing: conceptual framework, structured review, and research agenda. Journal of Information Technology. 31(2):166–184. doi:10.1057/jit.2016.14.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kittur A, Suh B, Pendleton BA, Chi EH 2007. He says, she says: conflict and coordination in wikipedia. Paper presented at: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery; San Jose, California, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Prpić J, Shukla PP, Kietzmann JH, McCarthy IP. 2015. How to work a crowd: developing crowd capital through crowdsourcing. Business Horizons. 58(1):77–85. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2014.09.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shachaf P, Hara N. 2010. Beyond vandalism: wikipedia trolls. Journal of Information Science. 36(3):357–370. doi:10.1177/0165551510365390.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lucassen T, Schraagen JM 2010. Trust in wikipedia: how users trust information from an unknown source. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/1772938.1772944.
   Google Scholar
• Perez S 2015. Wikipedia bans hundreds of “black hat” paid editors who created promotional pages on its site. https://techcrunch.com/2015/09/01/wikipedia-bans-hundreds-of-black-hat-paid-editors-who-created-promotional-pages-its-site/.
   Google Scholar
• Tuttle B 2015. Some people get paid a lot of money to edit wikipedia pages. http://money.com/money/3994949/wikipedia-paid-editors/.
   Google Scholar
• Troll J, Blohm I, Leimeister JM 2016. Revealing the impact of the crowdsourcing experience on the engagement process. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3159132.
   Google Scholar
• Lohr S 2009. Crowdsourcing works, when its focused. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/technology/internet/19unboxed.html.
   Google Scholar
• Chiu C-M, Liang T-P, Turban E. 2014. What can crowdsourcing do for decision support? Decision Support Systems. 65:40–49. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2014.05.010.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim J-H, Bock G-W 2011. A study on the factors affecting the behavior of spreading online rumors: focusing on the rumor recipient’s emotions. https://aisel.aisnet.org/pacis2011/98/.
   Google Scholar
• Ghosh A. 2012. Social computing and user-generated content: a game-theoretic approach. ACM SIGecom Exchanges. 11(2):16–21. doi:10.1145/2509002.2509006.
   Google Scholar
• Yang H-L, Lai C-Y. 2010. Motivations of wikipedia content contributors. Computers in Human Behavior. 26(6):1377–1383. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.04.011.doi
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rafaeli S, Ariel Y. Online motivational factors: incentives for participation and contribution in wikipedia. Psychol Aspects Cyberspacel. 2008;2:243–67.
   Google Scholar
• Li R, Suh A. 2015. Factors influencing information credibility on social media platforms: evidence from facebook pages. Procedia Computer Science. 72(1):314–328. doi:10.1016/j.procs.2015.12.146.
   Google Scholar
• Lukyanenko R, Parsons J, Wiersma YF. 2014. The iq of the crowd: understanding and improving information quality in structured user-generated content. Information Systems Research. 25(4):669–689. doi:10.1287/isre.2014.0537.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lukyanenko R, Parsons J, Wiersma YF, Maddah M. 2019. Expecting the unexpected: effects of data collection design choices on the quality of crowdsourced user-generated content. MIS Quarterly. 43(2):623–648. doi:10.25300/MISQ/2019/14439.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jimenez-Diaz G, Serrano A, Arroyo J 2018. A wikia census: motives, tools and insights. Paper presented at: Proceedings of the 14th International Symposium on Open Collaboration (OpenSym’18); ACM Press; Paris, France. Article.
   Google Scholar
• Au CH 2017. Wiki as a research support system—a trial in information systems research. Paper presented at: 2017 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (IEEM); Singapore: IEEE.
   Google Scholar
• Kittur A, Kraut RE 2010. Beyond wikipedia: coordination and conflict in online production groups. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/1718918.1718959.
   Google Scholar
• Martin L 2006. Wikipedia fights off cyber vandals. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2006/jun/18/wikipedia.news.
   Google Scholar
• Kleeman J 2007. Wikipedia fights vandalism. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10432042.
   Google Scholar
• Sumi R, Yasseri T, Rung A, Kornai A, Kertesz J 2011. Edit wars in wikipedia. Paper presented at: 2011 IEEE Third International Conference on Privacy, Security, Risk and Trust and 2011 IEEE Third International Conference on Social Computing; Boston, MA.
   Google Scholar
• Kalyanasundaram A, Wei W, Carley KM, Herbsleb JD 2015. An agent-based model of edit wars in wikipedia: how and when is consensus reached. Paper presented at: 2015 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC); Huntington Beach, CA.
   Google Scholar
• Boulos MNK, Resch B, Crowley DN, Breslin JG, Sohn G, Burtner R, Pike WA, Jezierski E, Chuang K-YS. 2011. Crowdsourcing, citizen sensing and sensor web technologies for public and environmental health surveillance and crisis management: trends, ogc standards and application examples. International Journal of Health Geographics. 10(1):67. doi:10.1186/1476-072X-10-67.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yao Y, Viswanath B, Cryan J, Zheng H, Zhao BY 2017. Automated crowdturfing attacks and defenses in online review systems. Paper presented at: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security. Dallas (Texas): ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Wang T, Wang G, Wang B, Sambasivan D, Zhang Z, Li X, Zheng H, Zhao BY. Value and misinformation in collaborative investing platforms. ACM Trans Web. 2017;11:8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Booth N 2011. Column: the dark side of crowdsourcing. https://www.computerweekly.com/microscope/opinion/Column-The-dark-side-of-crowdsourcing.
   Google Scholar
• Potthast M, Stein B, Gerling R 2008. Automatic vandalism detection in wikipedia. Paper presented at: European conference on information retrieval. Glasgow (Scotland): Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Guitton MJ. 2014. The importance of studying the dark side of social networks. Computers in Human Behavior. 31:355. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.10.055.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spitzberg BH. 2006. Preliminary development of a model and measure of computer-mediated communication (cmc) competence. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. 11(2):629–666. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00030.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McQuail D. Mcquail’s mass communication theory. Thousand Oaks (California): Sagepublication; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Kibby MD. 2005. Email forwardables: folklore in the age of the internet. New Media & Society. 7(6):770–790. doi:10.1177/1461444805058161.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stieglitz S, Krüger N 2011. Analysis of sentiments in corporate twitter communication–a case study on an issue of toyota. Paper presented at: Proceedings of the 22nd Australasian Conference on Information Systems (ACIS); Sydney, Australia.
   Google Scholar
• Moerschell L, Novak SS. Managing crisis in a university setting: the challenge of alignment. J Contingencies Crisis Manag. 2019. 38(1):30–40.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haines R, Hough J, Cao L, Haines D. 2014. Anonymity in computer-mediated communication: more contrarian ideas with less influence. Group Decision and Negotiation. 23(4):765–786. doi:10.1007/s10726-012-9318-2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joinson AN. 2001. Self‐disclosure in computer‐mediated communication: the role of self‐awareness and visual anonymity. European Journal of Social Psychology. 31(2):177–192. doi:10.1002/ejsp.36.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fano RM 1984. Computer mediated communication. Paper presented at: Electro-Culture 1984. International Society for Optics and Photonics; Arlington, VA, United States.
   Google Scholar
• Tandoc Jr EC, Lim ZW, Ling R. 2018. Defining “fake news” a typology of scholarly definitions. Digital Journalism. 6(2):137–153. doi:10.1080/21670811.2017.1360143.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kiesler S, Siegel J, McGuire TW. 1984. Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. American Psychologist. 39(10):1123. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.39.10.1123.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Althaus SL. 1997. Computer‐mediated communication in the university classroom: an experiment with on‐line discussions. Communication Education. 46(3). doi:10.1080/03634529709379088.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Valenzuela S, Correa T, Gil de Zúñiga H. 2018. Ties, likes, and tweets: using strong and weak ties to explain differences in protest participation across facebook and twitter use. Political Communication. 35(1):117–134. doi:10.1080/10584609.2017.1334726.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stieglitz S, Bunker D, Mirbabaie M, Ehnis C. 2018. Sense‐making in social media during extreme events. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management. 26(1):4–15. doi:10.1111/1468-5973.12193.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee F, Chan J. 2016. Digital media activities and mode of participation in a protest campaign: a study of the umbrella movement. Information, Communication and Society. 19(1):4–4. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2015.1093530.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raue S, Johnson C, Storer T 2012. (sma) 2-a social media audience sharing model for authorities to support effective crisis communication. https://digital-library.theiet.org/content/conferences/10.1049/cp.2012.1528.
   Google Scholar
• Derks D, Fischer AH, Bos AE. 2008. The role of emotion in computer-mediated communication: a review. Computers in Human Behavior. 24(3):766–785. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2007.04.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stieglitz S, Dang-Xuan L. 2013. Emotions and information diffusion in social media—sentiment of microblogs and sharing behavior. Journal of Management Information Systems. 29(4):217–248. doi:10.2753/MIS0742-1222290408.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Au CH, Ho KKW. Deliberation in mobile messaging application: a case in Hong Kong. Commun Assoc Inf Syst. 2019;44(1):270–298.
   Google Scholar
• Veil SR, Reno J, Freihaut R, Oldham J. 2015. Online activists vs. Kraft foods: a case of social media hijacking. Public Relations Review. 41(1):103–108. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.11.017.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Situngkir H 2011. Spread of hoax in social media. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1831202.
   Google Scholar
• Oh O, Agrawal M, Rao HR. 2013. Community intelligence and social media services: a rumor theoretic analysis of tweets during social crises. MIS Quarterly. 407–426. 37 doi:10.25300/MISQ/2013/37.2.05.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baccarella CV, Wagner TF, Kietzmann JH, McCarthy IP. 2018. Social media? It’s serious! Understanding the dark side of social media. European Management Journal. 36(4):431–438. doi:10.1016/j.emj.2018.07.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Görzig A, Frumkin LA. 2013. Cyberbullying experiences on-the-go: when social media can become distressing. Cyberpsychology. 7(1):4. doi:10.5817/CP2013-1-4.
   Google Scholar
• Lowry PB, Zhang J, Wang C, Siponen M. 2016. Why do adults engage in cyberbullying on social media? An integration of online disinhibition and deindividuation effects with the social structure and social learning model. Information Systems Research. 27(4):962–986. doi:10.1287/isre.2016.0671.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paluch P 2014. Cyberbullying: is it acceptable for celebrities? https://slwrig02.expressions.syr.edu/blog/2014/03/30/cyberbullying-is-it-acceptable-for-celebrities/.
   Google Scholar
• Elster N 2017. More than hurt feelings: the real danger of hate speech. https://impakter.com/hurt-feelings-real-danger-hate-speech/.
   Google Scholar
• Bauman S, Toomey RB, Walker JL. 2013. Associations among bullying, cyberbullying, and suicide in high school students. Journal of Adolescence. 36(2):341–350. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2012.12.001.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glenberg A 2019. Hearing hate speech primes your brain for hateful actions. https://theconversation.com/hearing-hate-speech-primes-your-brain-for-hateful-actions-107336.
   Google Scholar
• Banks J. 2010. Regulating hate speech online. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology. 24(3):233–239. doi:10.1080/13600869.2010.522323.
   Google Scholar
• Boyd D 2010. Risk reduction strategies on facebook. http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2010/11/08/risk-reduction-strategies-on-facebook.html.
   Google Scholar
• Fitch D. 2012. Youth in foster care and social media: a framework for developing privacy guidelines. Journal of Technology in Human Services. 30(2):94–108. doi:10.1080/15228835.2012.700854.
   Google Scholar
• Benbasat I, Goldstein DK, Mead M. 1987. The case research strategy in studies of information systems. MIS Quarterly. 369–386. 11 doi:10.2307/248684.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rynes S, Gephart RP Jr. From the editors: qualitative research and the” academy of management journal”. Acad Manag J. 2004; 47(4):454–462.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gable GG. 1994. Integrating case study and survey research methods: an example in information systems. European Journal of Information Systems. 3(2):112–126. doi:10.1057/ejis.1994.12.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klein HK, Myers MD. 1999. A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS Quarterly. 23(1):67–94. doi:10.2307/249410.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kozinets RV. Netnography: doing ethnographic research online. Thousand Oaks (California): Sage publications; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Langer R, Beckman SC., Elliott, R. 2005. Sensitive research topics: netnography revisited. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal. 8(2):189–203. doi:10.1108/13522750510592454.
   Google Scholar
• Pan SL, Tan B. 2011. Demystifying case research: a structured–pragmatic–situational (sps) approach to conducting case studies. Information and Organization. 21(3):161–176. doi:10.1016/j.infoandorg.2011.07.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Venkatesh V, Brown SA, Bala H. 2013. Bridging the qualitative-quantitative divide: guidelines for conducting mixed methods research in information systems. MIS Quarterly. 21–54. 37 doi:10.25300/MISQ/2013/37.1.02.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eisenhardt KM. 1989. Agency theory: an assessment and review. Academy of Management Review. 14(1):57–74. doi:10.5465/amr.1989.4279003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Popper B 2015. Someone just deleted donald trump’s entire wikipedia page. https://www.theverge.com/2015/7/22/9014525/someone-just-deleted-donald-trumps-entire-wikipedia-page.
   Google Scholar
• Liu BF, Austin L, Jin Y. 2011. How publics respond to crisis communication strategies: the interplay of information form and source. Public Relations Review. 37(4):345–353. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.08.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strauss A, Corbin J. Basics of qualitative research techniques. Thousand Oaks (California): Sage Publications; 1998.
   Google Scholar
• Gioia DA, Corley KG, Hamilton AL. 2013. Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: notes on the gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods. 16(1):15–31. doi:10.1177/1094428112452151.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Langley A. 1999. Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management Review. 24(4):691–710. doi:10.5465/amr.1999.2553248.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glaser BG, Strauss AL. The discovery ofgrounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Chicago (Illinois): Aldire; 1967.
   Google Scholar
• Yu V 2019. Andy hui apologizes after taxi camera captures infidelity. https://www.apnews.com/26804a7d214f4685bc2c43af05885dbf.
   Google Scholar
• Kluge S 2000. Empirically grounded construction of types and typologies in qualitative social research. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research. 1(1). https://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1124/2499
   Google Scholar
• Daw D 2011. Wikipedia wars: 10 biggest edit battles. https://www.pcworld.com/article/236486/wild_wars_of_wikipedia.html.
   Google Scholar
• Au CH, Ho KKW, Chiu DK. 2021. The role of online misinformation and fake news in ideological polarization: barriers, catalysts, and implications. Information Systems Frontiers. doi:10.1007/s10796-021-10133-9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spohr D. 2017. Fake news and ideological polarization: filter bubbles and selective exposure on social media. Business Information Review. 34(3):150–160. doi:10.1177/0266382117722446.
   Google Scholar
• Greving H, Kimmerle J, Oeberst A, Cress U. 2019. Emotions in wikipedia: the role of intended negative events in the expression of sadness and anger in online peer production. Behaviour & Information Technology. 38(8):796–806. doi:10.1080/0144929X.2018.1554702.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leonard NH, Beauvais LL, Scholl RW. 1999. Work motivation: the incorporation of self-concept-based processes. Human Relations. 52(8):969–998. doi:10.1177/001872679905200801.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xiao X, Tan B, Leong C, Tan FTC. 2020. Powered by “qinghuai”: the melding of traditional values and digital entrepreneurship in contemporary China. Information Systems Journal. doi:10.1111/isj.12301.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cox J, Oh EY, Simmons B, Graham G, Greenhill A, Lintott C, Masters K, Woodcock J. 2018. Doing good online: the changing relationships between motivations, activity, and retention among online volunteers. Nonprofit Voluntary Sector Quarterly. 47(5):1031–1056. doi:10.1177/0899764018783066.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whittaker E, Kowalski RM. 2015. Cyberbullying via social media. Journal of School Violence. 14(1):11–29. doi:10.1080/15388220.2014.949377.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lai C-Y, Yang H-L. 2014. The reasons why people continue editing wikipedia content–task value confirmation perspective. Behaviour & Information Technology. 33(12):1371–1382. doi:10.1080/0144929X.2014.929744.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang Y-H. 2008. Trust and relational commitment in corporate crises: the effects of crisis communicative strategy and form of crisis response. Journal of Public Relations Research. 20(3):297–327. doi:10.1080/10627260801962830.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee AS, Baskerville RL. 2003. Generalizing generalizability in information systems research. Information Systems Research. 14(3):221–243. doi:10.1287/isre.14.3.221.16560.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yin RK. Case study research: design and methods. 2003. Thousand Oaks (California): Sage Publication.
   Google Scholar