The Wisdom of the Crowd is not a Forgone Conclusion. Effects of Self-Selection on (Collaborative) Knowledge Construction.

IF 2.9 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL Topics in Cognitive Science Pub Date : 2024-04-01 Epub Date: 2023-04-22 DOI:10.1111/tops.12647
Marie-Christin Krebs, Aileen Oeberst, Ina von der Beck
{"title":"The Wisdom of the Crowd is not a Forgone Conclusion. Effects of Self-Selection on (Collaborative) Knowledge Construction.","authors":"Marie-Christin Krebs, Aileen Oeberst, Ina von der Beck","doi":"10.1111/tops.12647","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Web 2.0 has elevated the possibilities of collaboration to unprecedented levels. Therein lies great potential, as the aptly coined phenomenon \"Wisdom of the Crowd\" implies. When it comes to controversial topics, however, there is no safety in numbers alone. On the contrary, collaboration among only like-minded people may even exacerbate biases (e.g., Echo Chambers). Yet, it is human nature to seek out like-minded others. Consequently, the process of self-selection is crucial if the heterogeneity of opinions serves as a safeguard against undesirable effects of group processes (e.g., attitude polarization). Accordingly, online environments that invite more heterogeneous (vs. homogeneous) users should produce less biased content. We tested this hypothesis in a field study, comparing articles on the same 20 controversial topics from the online encyclopedias Conservapedia and RationalWiki with Wikipedia (and Britannica serving as a gold standard) and exploring the opinions of discussants in the three online encyclopedias. As expected, articles from Conservapedia and RationalWiki were significantly less balanced than articles from Wikipedia and Britannica. We replicated this finding in a lab study with 257 participants who self-selected to one of three online wikis (Vegan Love, Nutrition, Meat & Fish) and individually as well as collaboratively wrote an encyclopedia-like article about \"Diets.\" As expected, Wikis with a specific focus (Vegan Love, Meat & Fish) predominantly attracted authors with a positive attitude toward this focus and, as a consequence, resulted in more biased content than in the Nutrition Wiki. Overall, our results suggest that crowds alone do not guarantee wisdom-self-selection is a crucial process that needs to be taken into account.</p>","PeriodicalId":47822,"journal":{"name":"Topics in Cognitive Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Topics in Cognitive Science","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12647","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/4/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Web 2.0 has elevated the possibilities of collaboration to unprecedented levels. Therein lies great potential, as the aptly coined phenomenon "Wisdom of the Crowd" implies. When it comes to controversial topics, however, there is no safety in numbers alone. On the contrary, collaboration among only like-minded people may even exacerbate biases (e.g., Echo Chambers). Yet, it is human nature to seek out like-minded others. Consequently, the process of self-selection is crucial if the heterogeneity of opinions serves as a safeguard against undesirable effects of group processes (e.g., attitude polarization). Accordingly, online environments that invite more heterogeneous (vs. homogeneous) users should produce less biased content. We tested this hypothesis in a field study, comparing articles on the same 20 controversial topics from the online encyclopedias Conservapedia and RationalWiki with Wikipedia (and Britannica serving as a gold standard) and exploring the opinions of discussants in the three online encyclopedias. As expected, articles from Conservapedia and RationalWiki were significantly less balanced than articles from Wikipedia and Britannica. We replicated this finding in a lab study with 257 participants who self-selected to one of three online wikis (Vegan Love, Nutrition, Meat & Fish) and individually as well as collaboratively wrote an encyclopedia-like article about "Diets." As expected, Wikis with a specific focus (Vegan Love, Meat & Fish) predominantly attracted authors with a positive attitude toward this focus and, as a consequence, resulted in more biased content than in the Nutrition Wiki. Overall, our results suggest that crowds alone do not guarantee wisdom-self-selection is a crucial process that needs to be taken into account.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
群众的智慧不是被遗忘的结论。自我选择对(合作)知识构建的影响。
Web 2.0 将协作的可能性提升到了前所未有的高度。正如 "群众的智慧 "这一恰当的现象所暗示的那样,其中蕴藏着巨大的潜力。然而,当涉及到有争议的话题时,单靠人多并不安全。相反,只有志同道合者之间的合作甚至会加剧偏见(如回声室)。然而,寻找志同道合者是人类的天性。因此,如果意见的异质性可以防止群体过程的不良影响(如态度极化),那么自我选择的过程就是至关重要的。因此,邀请更多异质(相对于同质)用户的在线环境所产生的内容偏差应该更小。我们在一项实地研究中对这一假设进行了验证,比较了在线百科全书 Conservapedia 和 RationalWiki 与维基百科(以及作为黄金标准的《大英百科全书》)中关于同样 20 个有争议主题的文章,并探讨了这三个在线百科全书中讨论者的观点。不出所料,Conservapedia 和 RationalWiki 的文章明显不如维基百科和大英百科的文章平衡。我们在一项实验室研究中重复了这一发现,257 名参与者自主选择了三个在线维基(爱素食、营养、肉类和鱼类)中的一个,并单独或合作撰写了一篇关于 "饮食 "的百科全书式文章。不出所料,有特定关注点的维基("爱素食"、"肉与鱼")主要吸引了对这一关注点持积极态度的作者,因此,与 "营养 "维基相比,"爱素食"、"肉与鱼 "维基的内容更有倾向性。总之,我们的研究结果表明,仅靠人群并不能保证智慧,自我选择是一个需要考虑的重要过程。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Topics in Cognitive Science
Topics in Cognitive Science PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
8.50
自引率
10.00%
发文量
52
期刊介绍: Topics in Cognitive Science (topiCS) is an innovative new journal that covers all areas of cognitive science including cognitive modeling, cognitive neuroscience, cognitive anthropology, and cognitive science and philosophy. topiCS aims to provide a forum for: -New communities of researchers- New controversies in established areas- Debates and commentaries- Reflections and integration The publication features multiple scholarly papers dedicated to a single topic. Some of these topics will appear together in one issue, but others may appear across several issues or develop into a regular feature. Controversies or debates started in one issue may be followed up by commentaries in a later issue, etc. However, the format and origin of the topics will vary greatly.
期刊最新文献
Team Cognition Research Is Transforming Cognitive Science. Predictive Processing, Rational Constructivism, and Bayesian Models of Development: Commentary. A Matter of Memory? Age-Invariant Relative Clause Disambiguation and Memory Interference in Older Adults. Personalized Model-Driven Interventions for Decisions From Experience. Social Rationality and Human Reasoning: Logical Expressivism and the Flat Mind.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1