CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 114Social Media and PoliticsE-Government and Public ServicesPublic Relations and Crisis Communication

The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.

Public deliberation on government-managed social media: A study on Weibo users in China

Medaglia, Rony, Zhu, Demi·2017·Government Information Quarterly
DOI 10.1016/j.giq.2017.05.003
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.giq.2017.05.003

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 131 · Cited by 114

Research works printed but not linked: 96

  1. Abbott, 2012, Democracy@internet.org Revisited: Analysing the socio-political impact of the internet and new social media in East Asia, Third World Quarterly, 33, 333, 10.1080/01436597.2012.666015 · DOI
  2. Albrecht, 2006, Whose voice is heard in online deliberation?: A study of participation and representation in political debates on the internet, Information, Communication & Society, 9, 62, 10.1080/13691180500519548 · DOI
  3. Bächtiger, 2010, Disentangling diversity in deliberative democracy: Competing theories, their blind spots and complementarities, Journal of Political Philosophy, 18, 32, 10.1111/j.1467-9760.2009.00342.x · DOI
  4. Benhabib, 2001, Deliberative democracy, the public sphere and the internet, Philosophy Social Criticism, 27, 21, 10.1177/019145370102700402 · DOI
  5. Bertot, 2010, Using ICTs to create a culture of transparency: E-government and social media as openness and anti-corruption tools for societies, Government Information Quarterly, 27, 264, 10.1016/j.giq.2010.03.001 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Bertot, 2012, The impact of polices on government social media usage: Issues, challenges, and recommendations, Government Information Quarterly, 29, 30, 10.1016/j.giq.2011.04.004 · DOI
  7. Black, 2011, Self-governance through group discussion in Wikipedia: Measuring deliberation in online groups, Small Group Research, 42, 595, 10.1177/1046496411406137 · DOI
  8. Brabham, 2008, Crowdsourcing as a model for problem solving an introduction and cases, Convergence, 14, 75, 10.1177/1354856507084420 · DOI
  9. Breur, 2016, US elections: How could predictions be so wrong?, Journal of Marketing Analytics, 4, 125, 10.1057/s41270-016-0010-2 · DOI
  10. Brown, 2007, Word of mouth communication within online communities: Conceptualizing the online social network, Journal of Interactive Marketing, 21, 2, 10.1002/dir.20082 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Carpini, 2004, Public deliberation, discursive participation, and citizen engagement: A review of the empirical literature, Annual Review of Political Science, 7, 315, 10.1146/annurev.polisci.7.121003.091630 · DOI
  12. Carter, 2005, The utilization of e-government services: Citizen trust, innovation and acceptance factors, Information Systems Journal, 15, 5, 10.1111/j.1365-2575.2005.00183.x · DOI · Paper page
  13. Carty, 2010, New information and communication technology and grassroots mobilization, Information, Communication & Society, 13, 155, 10.1080/13691180902915658 · DOI
  14. Chambers, 2003, Deliberative democratic theory, Annual Review of Political Science, 6, 307, 10.1146/annurev.polisci.6.121901.085538 · DOI
  15. Chen, 2016, Social media policies as responses for social media affordances: The case of China, Government Information Quarterly, 33, 313, 10.1016/j.giq.2016.04.008 · DOI
  16. Chun, 2010, Government 2.0: Making connections between citizens, data and government, Information Polity, 15, 1, 10.3233/IP-2010-0205 · DOI
  17. Coleman, 2012, Under construction: The field of online deliberation research, Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 9, 1, 10.1080/19331681.2011.635957 · DOI
  18. Cordella, 2012, A public value perspective for ICT enabled public sector reforms: A theoretical reflection, Government Information Quarterly, 29, 512, 10.1016/j.giq.2012.03.004 · DOI
  19. Criado, 2013, Government innovation through social media, Government Information Quarterly, 30, 319, 10.1016/j.giq.2013.10.003 · DOI
  20. Dahlberg, 2001, Computer-mediated communication and the public sphere: A critical analysis, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 7, 1
  21. Dahlberg, 2001, Extending the public sphere through cyberspace: The case of Minnesota E-democracy, First Monday, 6, 10.5210/fm.v6i3.838 · DOI
  22. Dahlberg, 2001, The internet and democratic discourse: Exploring the prospects of online deliberative forums extending the public sphere, Information, Communication & Society, 4, 615, 10.1080/13691180110097030 · DOI
  23. Del Vicario, 2017, Mapping social dynamics on Facebook: The Brexit debate, Social Networks, 50, 6, 10.1016/j.socnet.2017.02.002 · DOI · Paper page
  24. Doan, 2011, Crowdsourcing systems on the world-wide web, Communications of the ACM, 54, 86, 10.1145/1924421.1924442 · DOI
  25. Eisinga, 2013, The reliability of a two-item scale: Pearson, Cronbach, or Spearman-Brown?, International Journal of Public Health, 58, 637, 10.1007/s00038-012-0416-3 · DOI · Paper page
  26. Ferro, 2013, Policy making 2.0: From theory to practice, Government Information Quarterly, 30, 359, 10.1016/j.giq.2013.05.018 · DOI
  27. Fishkin, 1992, Beyond teledemocracy: “America on the Line”, The Responsive Community, 2, 13
  28. Friess, 2015, A systematic review of online deliberation research, Policy & Internet, 7, 319, 10.1002/poi3.95 · DOI
  29. Gastil, 2008, Public deliberation as the organizing principle of political communication research, Journal of Public Deliberation, 4
  30. Gimmler, 2001, Deliberative democracy, the public sphere and the internet, Philosophy Social Criticism, 27, 21, 10.1177/019145370102700402 · DOI
  31. Golbeck, 2010, Twitter use by the U.S. Congress, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61, 1612, 10.1002/asi.21344 · DOI
  32. Graham, 2003, In search of online deliberation: Towards a new method for examining the quality of online discussions, Communications, 28, 173, 10.1515/comm.2003.012 · DOI
  33. Grant, 1997, Selection and use of content experts for instrument development, Research in Nursing & Health, 20, 269, 10.1002/(SICI)1098-240X(199706)20:3<269::AID-NUR9>3.0.CO;2-G · DOI
  34. Gutmann, 2002, Deliberative democracy beyond process, Journal of Political Philosophy, 10, 153, 10.1111/1467-9760.00147 · DOI
  35. Habermas, 1974, The public sphere: An encyclopedia article, New German Critique, 3, 49, 10.2307/487737 · DOI
  36. Halpern, 2013, Social media as a catalyst for online deliberation? Exploring the affordances of Facebook and YouTube for political expression, Computers in Human Behaviour, 29, 1159, 10.1016/j.chb.2012.10.008 · DOI
  37. He, 2011, Authoritarian deliberation: The deliberative turn in Chinese political development, Perspectives on Politics, 9, 269, 10.1017/S1537592711000892 · DOI
  38. Hofmann, 2013, What makes local governments' online communications successful? Insights from a multi-method analysis of Facebook, Government Information Quarterly, 30, 387, 10.1016/j.giq.2013.05.013 · DOI
  39. Hong, 2013, Who benefits from twitter? Social media and political competition in the U.S. House of Representatives, Government Information Quarterly, 30, 464, 10.1016/j.giq.2013.05.009 · DOI
  40. Hong, 2016, Political polarisation on twitter: Implications for the use of social media in digital governments, Government Information Quarterly, 33, 777, 10.1016/j.giq.2016.04.007 · DOI
  41. Hong, 2012, Which candidates do the public discuss online in an election campaign? The use of social media by 2012 presidential candidates and its impact on candidate salience, Government Information Quarterly, 29, 455, 10.1016/j.giq.2012.06.004 · DOI
  42. Jaeger, 2005, Deliberative democracy and the conceptual foundations of electronic government, Government Information Quarterly, 22, 702, 10.1016/j.giq.2006.01.012 · DOI
  43. Janssen, 2005, Online forums and deliberative democracy, Acta Politica, 40, 317, 10.1057/palgrave.ap.5500115 · DOI
  44. Lampe, 2014, Crowdsourcing civility: A natural experiment examining the effects of distributed moderation in online forums, Government Information Quarterly, 31, 317, 10.1016/j.giq.2013.11.005 · DOI
  45. Lawrence, 2010, Self-segregation or deliberation? Blog readership, participation, and polarisation in American politics, Perspectives on Politics, 8, 141, 10.1017/S1537592709992714 · DOI · Paper page
  46. Lee, 2003, Generalizing generalizability in information systems research, Information Systems Research, 14, 221, 10.1287/isre.14.3.221.16560 · DOI
  47. Lee, 2012, An open government maturity model for social media-based public engagement, Government Information Quarterly, 29, 492, 10.1016/j.giq.2012.06.001 · DOI
  48. Lewis, 2005, A methodology for construct development in MIS research, European Journal of Information Systems, 14, 388, 10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000552 · DOI
  49. Li, 2010, The online public space and popular ethos in China, Media, Culture & Society, 32, 63, 10.1177/0163443709350098 · DOI
  50. Liang, 2014, Coevolution of political discussion and common ground in web discussion forum, Social Science Computer Review, 32, 155, 10.1177/0894439313506844 · DOI
  51. Ling, 2015, ICT-enabled community empowerment in crisis response: Social media in Thailand flooding 2011, Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 16, 1
  52. Maerz, 2016, The electronic face of authoritarianism: E-government as a tool for gaining legitimacy in competitive and non-competitive regimes, Government Information Quarterly, 33, 727, 10.1016/j.giq.2016.08.008 · DOI
  53. McKinney, 2002, The measurement of web-customer satisfaction: An expectation and disconfirmation approach, Information Systems Research, 13, 296, 10.1287/isre.13.3.296.76 · DOI
  54. McPherson, 2001, Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks, Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415, 10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415 · DOI · Paper page
  55. Medaglia, 2017, Online public deliberation in China: Evolution of interaction patterns and network homophily in the Tianya discussion forum, Information, Communication & Society, 20, 733, 10.1080/1369118X.2016.1203974 · DOI
  56. Meijer, 2013, Social media strategies: Understanding the differences between North American police departments, Government Information Quarterly, 30, 343, 10.1016/j.giq.2013.05.023 · DOI
  57. Mergel, 2013, A framework for interpreting social media interactions in the public sector, Government Information Quarterly, 30, 327, 10.1016/j.giq.2013.05.015 · DOI
  58. Mergel, 2013, Social media adoption and resulting tactics in the U.S. federal government, Government Information Quarterly, 30, 123, 10.1016/j.giq.2012.12.004 · DOI
  59. Min, 2009, Deliberation, East meets West: Exploring the cultural dimension of citizen deliberation, Acta Politica, 44, 439, 10.1057/ap.2009.10 · DOI
  60. Min, 2014, On the Westerness of deliberation research, Journal of Public Deliberation, 10
  61. Mossberger, 2013, Connecting citizens and local governments? Social media and interactivity in major U.S. cities, Government Information Quarterly, 30, 351, 10.1016/j.giq.2013.05.016 · DOI · Paper page
  62. Moy, 2006, Predicting deliberative conversation: The impact of discussion networks, media use, and political cognitions, Political Communication, 23, 443, 10.1080/10584600600977003 · DOI
  63. Mutz, 2008, Is Deliberative Democracy a Falsifiable Theory?, Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 521, 10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.081306.070308 · DOI
  64. Palmer, 2002, Web site usability, design, and performance metrics, Information Systems Research, 13, 151, 10.1287/isre.13.2.151.88 · DOI
  65. Papacharissi, 2004, Democracy online: Civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups, New Media & Society, 6, 259, 10.1177/1461444804041444 · DOI
  66. Picazo-Vela, 2012, Understanding risks, benefits, and strategic alternatives of social media applications in the public sector, Government Information Quarterly, 29, 504, 10.1016/j.giq.2012.07.002 · DOI
  67. Porumbescu, 2016, Linking public sector social media and e-government website use to trust in government, Government Information Quarterly, 33, 291, 10.1016/j.giq.2016.04.006 · DOI
  68. Price, 2002, Does disagreement contribute to more deliberative opinion?, Political Communication, 19, 95, 10.1080/105846002317246506 · DOI
  69. Rauchfleisch, 2015, Multiple public spheres of Weibo: A typology of forms and potentials of online public spheres in China, Information, Communication & Society, 18, 139, 10.1080/1369118X.2014.940364 · DOI
  70. Rowe, 2015, Civility 2.0: A comparative analysis of incivility in online political discussion, Information, Communication & Society, 18, 121, 10.1080/1369118X.2014.940365 · DOI
  71. Rowe, 1990, The public sphere in modern China, Modern China, 16, 309, 10.1177/009770049001600303 · DOI
  72. Sandoval-Almazan, 2014, Towards cyberactivism 2.0? Understanding the use of social media and other information technologies for political activism and social movements, Government Information Quarterly, 31, 365, 10.1016/j.giq.2013.10.016 · DOI
  73. Schneider, 1996, Creating a democratic public sphere through political discussion: A case study of abortion conversation on the internet, Social Science Computer Review, 14, 373, 10.1177/089443939601400401 · DOI
  74. Sobkowicz, 2012, Properties of social network in an internet political discussion forum, Advances in Complex Systems, 15, 10.1142/S0219525912500622 · DOI
  75. Sobkowicz, 2012, Two-year study of emotion and communication patterns in a highly polarised political discussion forum, Social Science Computer Review, 30, 448, 10.1177/0894439312436512 · DOI
  76. Stamati, 2015, Social media for openness and accountability in the public sector: Cases in the Greek context, Government Information Quarterly, 32, 12, 10.1016/j.giq.2014.11.004 · DOI
  77. Steenbergen, 2003, Measuring political deliberation: A discourse quality index, Comparative European Politics, 1, 21, 10.1057/palgrave.cep.6110002 · DOI
  78. Stromer-Galley, 2007, Measuring deliberation's content: A coding scheme, Journal of Public Deliberation, 3
  79. Sullivan, 2012, A tale of two microblogs in China, Media, Culture & Society, 34, 773, 10.1177/0163443712448951 · DOI
  80. Sullivan, 2014, China's Weibo: Is faster different?, New Media & Society, 16, 24, 10.1177/1461444812472966 · DOI
  81. Teo, 2008, Trust and electronic government success: An empirical study, Journal of Management Information Systems, 25, 99, 10.2753/MIS0742-1222250303 · DOI
  82. Thompson, 2008, Deliberative democratic theory and empirical political science, Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 497, 10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.081306.070555 · DOI
  83. Treem, 2012, Social media use in organizations: Exploring the affordances of visibility, editability, persistence, and association, Communication Yearbook, 36, 143
  84. Van Alstyne, 2005, Global village or cyber-Balkans? Modeling and measuring the integration of electronic communities, Management Science, 51, 851, 10.1287/mnsc.1050.0363 · DOI
  85. Wilhelm, 1998, Virtual sounding boards: How deliberative is on-line political discussion?, Information, Communications Society, 1, 313, 10.1080/13691189809358972 · DOI
  86. Wojcieszak, 2012, Facts versus perceptions: Who reports disagreement during deliberation and are the reports accurate?, Political Communication, 29, 299, 10.1080/10584609.2012.694984 · DOI
  87. Wright, 2014, Regional variation in Chinese internet filtering, Information, Communication & Society, 17, 121, 10.1080/1369118X.2013.853818 · DOI
  88. Wu, 2014, Expanding civic engagement in China: Super girl and entertainment-based online community, Information, Communication & Society, 17, 105, 10.1080/1369118X.2013.833276 · DOI
  89. Yang, 2003, The internet and the rise of a transnational Chinese cultural sphere, Media, Culture & Society, 25, 469, 10.1177/01634437030254003 · DOI
  90. Yang, 2007, Media, civil society, and the rise of a green public sphere in China, China Information, 21, 211, 10.1177/0920203X07079644 · DOI
  91. Zavattaro, 2014, A critical examination of social media adoption in government: Introducing omnipresence, Government Information Quarterly, 31, 257, 10.1016/j.giq.2013.10.007 · DOI
  92. Zhang, 2015, Perceived procedural fairness in deliberation predictors and effects, Communication Research, 42, 345, 10.1177/0093650212469544 · DOI
  93. Zhang, 2013, The structural features and the deliberative quality of online discussions, Telematics and Informatics, 30, 74, 10.1016/j.tele.2012.06.001 · DOI
  94. Zheng, 2013, Social media in Chinese government: Drivers, challenges and capabilities, Government Information Quarterly, 30, 369, 10.1016/j.giq.2013.05.017 · DOI
  95. Zheng, 2014, Innovation through social media in the public sector: Information and interactions, Government Information Quarterly, 31, S106, 10.1016/j.giq.2014.01.011 · DOI
  96. Zhou, 2008, Deliberativeness of online political discussion, Journalism Studies, 9, 759, 10.1080/14616700802207771 · DOI

Metadata

Authors
Medaglia, R., & Zhu, D.
Affiliations
  • Copenhagen Business School (DK)
  • Tongji University (CN)
Corresponding author
Medaglia, Rony
ORCID
Venue
Government Information Quarterly
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-09
Volume
34
Issue
3
Pages
533-544
ISSN
0740-624X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.giq.2017.05.003
OpenAlex
W2616625730
Cited by
114
References
131
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3
FWCI
19.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Government Information Quarterly (publishedVersion)
  • CBS Research Portal (Copenhagen Business School) (publishedVersion)
Funders
Sino-Danish Center for Education and Research (SDC)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › E-Government and Public Services
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Public Relations and Crisis Communication
Keywords
public deliberation, government social media, Weibo, citizen participation, homophily, political polarization, Chinese social media users

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Public deliberation on government-managed social media: A study on Weibo users in China. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.giq.2017.05.003
The paper
Medaglia, R., & Zhu, D. (2017). Public deliberation on government-managed social media: A study on Weibo users in China. Government Information Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2017.05.003