Publication | Open Access
Testing an integrative theoretical model of knowledge‐sharing behavior in the context of Wikipedia
158
Citations
54
References
2010
Year
Collective KnowledgeMedia StandardsSocial InfluenceInformation SharingCommunicationJournalismSocial MediaManagementKnowledge EcosystemsIntegrative Theoretical ModelInternal Cognitive BeliefsFair KnowledgeTrustKnowledge ExchangeGeneralized ReciprocityKnowledge SharingBusinessSocial AccessKnowledge ManagementArts
This study investigates the motivations and factors driving Wikipedia contributors to engage in collaborative knowledge‑building. The authors surveyed 223 Wikipedians and used structural equation modeling to examine how motivations, cognitive beliefs, and social‑relational factors relate to knowledge‑sharing intentions. Structural equation modeling shows that attitudes, knowledge self‑efficacy, and generalized reciprocity directly predict knowledge‑sharing intentions, while altruism boosts attitudes but reputation does not, and a sense of belonging influences intentions indirectly through motivational and social pathways.
Abstract This study explores how and why people participate in collaborative knowledge‐building practices in the context of Wikipedia. Based on a survey of 223 Wikipedians, this study examines the relationship between motivations, internal cognitive beliefs, social‐relational factors, and knowledge‐sharing intentions. Results from structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis reveal that attitudes, knowledge self‐efficacy, and a basic norm of generalized reciprocity have significant and direct relationships with knowledge‐sharing intentions. Altruism (an intrinsic motivator) is positively related to attitudes toward knowledge sharing, whereas reputation (an extrinsic motivator) is not a significant predictor of attitude. The study also reveals that a social‐relational factor, namely, a sense of belonging, is related to knowledge‐sharing intentions indirectly through different motivational and social factors such as altruism, subjective norms, knowledge self‐efficacy, and generalized reciprocity. Implications for future research and practice are discussed.
| Year | Citations | |
|---|---|---|
Page 1
Page 1