The Evolutionary Trajectories of Peer-Produced Artifacts: Group Composition, the Trajectories’ Exploration, and the Quality of Artifacts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Members of an online community peer-produce digital artifacts by negotiating different perspectives and personal knowledge bases. These negotiations are manifested in the temporal evolution of the peer-produced artifact. In this study, we conceptualize the evolution of a digital artifact as a trajectory in a feature space. Our theoretical frame suggests that, through negotiations, contributors’ actions “pull” the trajectory and shape its movement in the feature space. We hypothesize that the type of contributors that work on a focal article influences the extent to which that article’s trajectory explores alternative positions within that space, and that the trajectory’s exploration is, in turn, associated with the artifact’s quality. To test these hypotheses, we analyzed the trajectories of wiki articles drawn from two peer-production communities, Wikipedia and Wikia, tracking the evolution of 242 paired articles for over a decade during which the articles went through 536,745 revisions. We found that the contributors who are the most likely to increase the trajectory’s exploration are those that (1) return to work on the focal artifact and (2) are unregistered members in the broader online community. Further, our results show that the trajectory’s exploration has a curvilinear association with article quality, indicating that exploration contributes positively to quality, but that the effect is reversed when exploration exceeds a certain level. The insights derived from this study highlight the value of an artifact-centric approach to increasing our understanding of the dynamics underlying peer-production.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".