CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 67Open Source Software InnovationsSoftware Engineering Techniques and PracticesDigital Platforms and Economics

Governing Open Source Software Through Coordination Processes

Open access
Shaikh, Maha, Henfridsson, Ola·2017·Information and Organization
DOI 10.1016/j.infoandorg.2017.04.001
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.infoandorg.2017.04.001

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Vendor control of an open source project is a position where a single vendor has unilateral control over key project governance practices.

    “Vendor control of an open source project is a position where a single vendor has unilateral control over key project governance practices (Shaikh and Vaast 2016;Shaikh and Henfridsson 2017).”

    From Freeriding and Rebellion: An Investigation of Open Source Vendor Relicensing and Member Hard Forking Events (2026) · cites this paper as Shaikh and Henfridsson 2017

    The Autocratic Clearing section describes a single actor controlling access and making significant project decisions. Its example is Torvalds in the Linux Kernel, not a vendor; the paper does not establish the claimed definition of vendor control or unilateral vendor authority over key governance practices. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Engaging in collective action threats and expecting open source governance practices to remain unchanged is also risky as open source governance may be controlled by just a few people willing to make unilateral changes to offset collective action threats.

    “Likewise, engaging in collective action threats and expecting open source governance practices to remain unchanged is also risky as open source governance may be controlled by just a few people willing to make unilateral changes to offset collective action threats (O'Mahony and Ferraro 2007; Shaikh and Henfridsson 2017;Mindel et al. 2018).”

    From Freeriding and Rebellion: An Investigation of Open Source Vendor Relicensing and Member Hard Forking Events (2026) · cites this paper as Shaikh and Henfridsson 2017

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Altering open source project governance practices while hoping for routine patterns of action is an approach potentially wrought with setbacks.

    “we root our research in the premise that altering open source project governance practices while hoping for routine patterns of action is an approach potentially wrought with setbacks (Pentland and Feldman 2008;Shaikh and Henfridsson 2017)”

    From Freeriding and Rebellion: An Investigation of Open Source Vendor Relicensing and Member Hard Forking Events (2026) · cites this paper as Shaikh and Henfridsson 2017

  • The research linked how collective action threats are related to open source project governance practices.

    “In doing so, our research linked how collective action threats are related to open source project governance practices (Shaikh and Henfridsson 2017;Mindel et al. 2018).”

    From Freeriding and Rebellion: An Investigation of Open Source Vendor Relicensing and Member Hard Forking Events (2026) · cites this paper as Shaikh and Henfridsson 2017

  • Open source projects can simultaneously incorporate meritocratic and autocratic modes of governance, and tensions can arise from how authority is allocated and exercised within an open source project.

    “This configuration is consistent with Shaikh and Henfridsson's (2017) observation that open source projects can simultaneously incorporate meritocratic and autocratic modes of governance, and O'Mahony and Ferraro's (2007) observation that tensions can arise from how authority is allocated and exercised within an open source project.”

    From Freeriding and Rebellion: An Investigation of Open Source Vendor Relicensing and Member Hard Forking Events (2026) · cites this paper as Shaikh and Henfridsson's (2017)

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 108

  1. Aaltonen, A., and Lanzara, G. F. 2015. "Building Governance Capability in Online Social Production: Insights from Wikipedia," Organization Studies (36:12), pp. 1649-1673.
  2. Adler, P. S., and Borys, B. 1996. "Two Types of Bureaucracy: Enabling and Coercive," Administrative Science Quarterly (41), pp. 61-89.
  3. Alexy, O., George, G., and Salter, A. J. 2013. "Cui Bono? The Selective Revealing of Knowledge and Its Implications for Innovative Activity," Academy of Management Review (38:2), pp. 270-291.
  4. Barrett, M., Heracleous, L., and Walsham, G. 2013. "A Rhetorical Approach to It Diffusion: Reconceptualizing the Ideology-Framing Relationship in Computerization Movements," MIS Quarterly (37:1), pp. 201-220.
  5. Ben-Menahem, S. M., von Krogh, G., Erden, Z., and Schneider, A. 2016. "Coordinating Knowledge Creation in Multidisciplinary Teams: Evidence from Early-Stage Drug Discovery," Academy of Management Journal (59:4), pp. 1308-1338.
  6. Bezroukov, N. 1999. "Open Source Software Development as a Special Type of Academic Research (Critique of Vulgar Raymondism)," FirstMonday: Peer Reviewed Journal on the Internet (4:10), pp. 1-23.
  7. Boudreau, K. 2010. "Open Platform Strategies and Innovation: Granting Access Vs. Devolving Control," Management Science (56:10), pp. 1849-1872.
  8. Bruns, H. C. 2013. "Working Alone Together: Coordination in Collaboration across Domains of Expertise," Academy of Management Journal (56:1), pp. 62-83.
  9. Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., and Bloomberg, L. 2014. "Public Value Governance: Moving Beyond Traditional Public Administration and the New Public Management," Public Administration Review (74:4), pp. 445-456.
  10. Capra, E., Francalanci, C., Merlo, F., and Lamastra, C. R. 2011. "Firms' Involvement in Open Source Projects: A Trade-Off between Software Structural Quality and Popularity," Journal of Systems and Software (84), pp. 144-161.
  11. Conlon, M. P. 2007. "An Examination of Initiation, Organization, Participation, Leadership, and Control of Successful Open Source Software Development Projects," Information Systems Education Journal (5:38), pp. 1-13.
  12. Cornford, T., Shaikh, M., and Ciborra, C. 2010. "Hierarchy, Laboratory and Collective: Unveiling Linux as Innovation, Machination and Constitution," Journal of the Association for Information Systems (11:11).
  13. Crowston, K., Howison, J., Masango, C., and Eseryel, U. Y. 2007. "The Role of Face-to-Face Meetings in Technology-Supported Self-Organizing Distributed Teams," Professional Communication, IEEE Transactions on (50:3), pp. 185-203.
  14. Crowston, K., and Scozzi, B. 2002. "Open Source Software Projects as Virtual Organizations: Competency Rallying for Software Development," IEE Proceedings -Software (149:1), pp. 3-17.
  15. Crowston, K., and Scozzi, B. 2004. "Coordination Practices for Bug Fixing within Floss Development Teams," First International Workshop on Computer Supported Activity Coordination (CSAC 2004).
  16. Crozier, M. 1964. The Bureaucratic Phenomenon. Chicago University Press.
  17. Dahlander, L., and Frederiksen, L. 2012. "The Core and Cosmopolitans: A Relational View of Innovation in User Communities," Organization Science (23:4), pp. 988-1007.
  18. Dahlander, L., and Magnusson, M. 2008. "How Do Firms Make Use of Open Source Communities?," Long Range Planning (41:6), pp. 629-649.
  19. Dahlander, L., and Magnusson, M. G. 2005. "Relationships between Open Source Software Companies and Communities: Observations from Nordic Firms," Research Policy (34), pp. 481-493.
  20. Dahlander, L., and O'Mahony, S. 2011. "Progressing to the Center: Coordinating Project Work," Organization Science (22:4), pp. 961-979.
  21. Dahlander, L., and Wallin, M. W. 2006. "A Man on the Inside: Unlocking Communities as Complementary Assets," Research Policy (35), pp. 1243-1259.
  22. Daily, C. M., Dalton, D. R., and Rajagopalan, N. 2003. "Governance through Ownership: Centuries of Practice, Decades of Research," Academy of Management Journal (46:2), pp. 151-158.
  23. Dalle, M., and David, P. A. 2005. "The Allocation of Software Development Resources in 'Open Source' Production Mode," in Perspectives on Open Source and Free Software, J. Feller, B. Fitzgerald, S. Hissam and K. Lakhani (eds.). Sebastapol, CA: O'Reilly Associates.
  24. Davis, J. P., and Eisenhardt, K. M. 2011. "Rotating Leadership and Collaborative Innovation: Recombination Processes in Symbiotic Relationships," Administrative Science Quarterly (56:2), pp. 159-201.
  25. de Laat, P. B. 2007. "Governance of Open Source Software: State of the Art," Journal of Management and Governance (11:2), pp. 165-177.
  26. De Noni, I., Ganzaroli, A., and Orsi, L. 2011. "The Governance of Open Source Software Communities: An Exploratory Analysis," Journal of Business Systems, Governance and Ethics (6:1), pp. 1-18.
  27. De Noni, I., Ganzaroli, A., and Orsi, L. 2013. "The Evolution of Oss Governance: A Dimensional Comparative Analysis," Scandinavian Journal of Management (29:3), pp. 247-263.
  28. Demil, B., and Lecocq, X. 2006. "Neither Market nor Hierarchy nor Network: The Emergence of Bazaar Governance," Organization Studies (27:10), pp. 1447-1466.
  29. Eisenhardt, K. M. 1985. "Control: Organizational and Economic Approaches " Management Science (31:2), pp. 134-149.
  30. Eseryel, U. Y., and Eseryel, D. 2013. "Action-Embedded Transformational Leadership in Self-Managing Global Information Systems Development Teams," The Journal of Strategic Information Systems (22:2), pp. 103-120.
  31. Etzioni, A. 1959. "Authority Structure and Organizational Effectiveness," Administrative Science Quarterly (4), pp. 43-67.
  32. Faems, D., Janssens, M., Madhok, A., and Looy, B. V. 2008. "Toward an Integrative Perspective on Alliance Governance: Connecting Contract Design, Trust Dynamics, and Contract Application," Academy of Management Journal (51:6), pp. 1053-1078.
  33. Farjoun, M. 2010. "Beyond Dualism: Stability and Change as a Duality," The Academy of Management Review (35:2), pp. 202-225.
  34. Felin, T., and Zenger, T. R. 2014. "Closed or Open Innovation? Problem Solving and the Governance Choice," Research Policy (43:5), pp. 914-925.
  35. Feller, J., Finnegan, P., Fitzgerald, B., and Hayes, J. 2008. "Bazaar by Design: Managing Interfirm Exchanges in an Open Source Service Network," Information Technology in the Service Economy: Challenges and Possibilities for the 21st Century (267), pp. 173-188.
  36. Feller, J., and Fitzgerald, B. 2002. Understanding Open Source Software Development. London, UK: Addison-Wesley.
  37. Fielding, R. T. 1999. "Shared Leadership in the Apache Project," Communications of the ACM (42:4).
  38. Fitzgerald, B. 2006. "The Transformation of Open Source Software," MIS Quarterly (30:3), pp. 587-598.
  39. Fogel, K. 1999. Open Source Development with Cvs. Scottsdale, AZ: Coriolis Open Press.
  40. Fogel, K. 2005. Producing Open Source Software: How to Run a Successful Free Software Project. Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly.
  41. Gallivan, M. J. 2001. "Striking a Balance between Trust and Control in a Virtual Organization: A Content Analysis of Open Source Software Case Studies," Information Systems Journal (11), pp. 277-304.
  42. Garud, R., Kumaraswamy, A., and Sambamurthy, V. 2006. "Emergent by Design: Performance and Transformation at Infosys Technologies," Organization Science (17:2), pp. 277-286.
  43. Gerring, J. 2007. Case Study Research: Principles and Practices. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  44. Glaser, B. 1992. Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis. Mill Valley, California: Sociology Press.
  45. Gulati, R. 1998. "Alliances and Networks," Strategic Management Journal (19:4), pp. 293-317.
  46. Gulati, R., and Singh, H. 1998. "The Architecture of Cooperation: Managing Coordination Costs and Appropriation Concerns in Strategic Alliances," Administrative science quarterly (43), pp. 781- 814.
  47. Han, K., Oh, W., Im, K. S., Chang, R. M., Oh, H., and Pinsonneault, A. 2012. "Value Cocreation and Wealth Spillover in Open Innovation Alliances," MIS Quarterly (36:1), pp. 291-325.
  48. Hargadon, A. B., and Douglas, Y. 2001. "When Innovations Meet Institutions: Edison and the Design of the Electric Light," Administrative Science Quarterly (46:3), pp. 476-501.
  49. Harrison, P. M. 1960. "Weber's Categories of Authority and Voluntary Associations," American Sociological Review (25:2), pp. 232-237.
  50. Harrison, S., and Rouse, E. 2014. "Let's Dance! Elastic Coordination in Creative Group Work: A Qualitative Study of Modern Dancers," Academy of Management Journal (57:5), pp. 1256-1283.
  51. Hemetsberger, A., and Reinhardt, C. 2009. "Collective Development in Open-Source Communities: An Activity Theoretical Perspective on Successful Online Collaboration," Organization Studies (30:9), pp. 987-1008.
  52. Howison, J., and Crowston, K. 2014. "Collaboration through Open Superposition: A Theory of the Open Source Way," MIS Quarterly (38:1), pp. 29-50.
  53. Ingram, P., and Torfason, M. T. 2010. "Organizing the in-Between: The Population Dynamics of Network- Weaving Organizations in the Global Interstate Network," Administrative Science Quarterly (55:4), pp. 577-605.
  54. Jarzabkowski, P., Le, J. K., and Feldman, M. 2012. "Toward a Theory of Coordinating: Creating Coordinating Mechanisms in Practice," Organization Science (23:4), pp. 907-927.
  55. Kallinikos, J. 2004. "The Social Foundations of the Bureaucratic Order," Organization (11:1), pp. 13-36.
  56. Kieser, A. 1994. "Why Organization Theory Needs Historical Analyses-and How This Should Be Performed," Organization Science (5:4), pp. 608-620.
  57. Koch, S., and Schneider, G. 2002. "Effort, Cooperation and Coordination in an Open Source Software Project: Gnome," Information Systems Journal (12:1), pp. 27-42.
  58. Kogut, B., and Metiu, A. 2001. "Open-Source Software Development and Distributed Innovation," Oxford Review of Economic Policy (17:2), pp. 248-264.
  59. Kotlarsky, J., Scarbrough, H., and Oshri, I. 2014. "Coordinating Expertise across Knowledge Boundaries in Offshore-Outsourcing Projects: The Role of Codification," MIS Quarterly (38:2), pp. 607-627.
  60. Langley, A. 1999. "Strategies for Theorizing from Process Data," Academy of Management review (24), pp. 691-710.
  61. Langley, A., Smallman, C., Tsoukas, H., and Van de Ven, A. H. 2013. "Process Studies of Change in Organization and Management: Unveiling Temporality, Activity, and Flow," Academy of Management Journal (56:1), pp. 1-13.
  62. Lanzara, G. F., and Morner, M. 2005. "Artifacts Rule! How Organizing Happens in Open Source Projects," in Actor-Network Theory and Organizing, B. Czarniawska and T. Hernes (eds.). Copenhagen, Denmark: Copenhagen Business School Press.
  63. Lee, G. K., and Cole, R. E. 2003. "From a Firm-Based to a Community-Based Model of Knowledge Creation: The Case of the Linux Kernel Development," Organization Science (14:6), pp. 633-649.
  64. Lindberg, A., Berente, N., Gaskin, J., and Lyytinen, K. 2016. "Coordinating Interdependencies in Online Communities: A Study of an Open Source Software Project," Information Systems Research (27:4), pp. 751-772.
  65. Malone, T. W. 1987. "Modeling Coordination in Organizations and Markets," Management Science (33:10 (October)), pp. 1317-1332.
  66. Markus, M. L. 2007. "The Governance of Free/Open Source Software Projects: Monolithic, Multidimensional, or Configurational?," Journal of Management and Governance (11:2), pp. 151- 163.
  67. Markus, M. L., and Bui, Q. N. 2012. "Going Concerns: The Governance of Interorganizational Coordination Hubs," Journal of Management Information Systems (28:4), pp. 163-198.
  68. Mason, R. O., McKenney, J. L., and Copeland, D. G. 1997a. "Developing an Historical Tradition in Mis Research," MIS Quarterly (21:3), pp. 257-276.
  69. Mason, R. O., McKenney, J. L., and Copeland, D. G. 1997b. "An Historical Method for Mis Research: Steps and Assumptions," MIS Quarterly (21:3), pp. 307-320.
  70. Meyer, M., and Montagne, F. 2007. "Open Source Software and the Self-Governed Community," Revue D Economie Politique (117:3), pp. 387-405.
  71. Meyer, M. W. 1968. "The Two Authority Structures of Bureaucratic Organizatino," Administrative Science Quarterly (13:2), pp. 211-228.
  72. Midha, V., and Bhattacherjee, A. 2012. "Governance Practices and Software Maintenance: A Study of Open Source Projects," Decision Support Systems (54:1), pp. 23-32.
  73. Miller, D. 1987. "The Genesis of Configuration," The Academy of Management Review (12:4), pp. 686-701.
  74. Miller, D. 1990. "Organizational Configurations: Cohesion, Change, and Prediction," Human Relations (43:8), pp. 771-789.
  75. Mintzberg, H. 1980. "Structure in 5's: A Synthesis of the Research on Organization Design," Management Science (26:3), pp. 322-341.
  76. Mintzberg, H., and McHugh, A. 1985. "Strategy Formation in an Adhocracy," Administrative Science Quarterly (30:2), pp. 160-197.
  77. Mockus, A., Fielding, R. T., and Herbsleb, J. 2002. "Two Case Studies of Open Source Software Development: Apache and Mozilla," ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM) (11:3), pp. 309 -346.
  78. O'Mahony, S. 2007. "The Governance of Open Source Initiatives: What Does It Mean to Be Community Managed?," Journal of Management & Governance (11:2), pp. 139-150.
  79. Oh, W., Moon, J. Y., Hahn, J., and Kim, T. 2016. "Research Note-Leader Influence on Sustained Participation in Online Collaborative Work Communities: A Simulation-Based Approach," Information Systems Research (27:2), pp. 383-402.
  80. Olson, G. M., Malone, T. W., and Smith, J. B. 2001. Coordination Theory and Collaboration Technology. Psychology Press.
  81. Orek, S., and Nov, O. 2008. "Exploring Motivations for Contributing to Open Source Initiatives: The Roles of Contribution Context and Personal Values," Computers in Human Behavior (24), pp. 2055- 2073.
  82. Osborn, R. N., and Hagedoorn, J. 1997. "The Institutionalization and Evolutionary Dynamics of Interorganizational Alliances and Networks," Academy of Management Journal (40:2), pp. 261- 278.
  83. Ouchi, W. 1980. "Markets, Bureaucracies and Clans," Administrative Science Quarterly (25), pp. 120-142.
  84. Peng, G., Wan, Y., and Woodlock, P. 2013. "Network Ties and the Success of Open Source Software Development," The Journal of Strategic Information Systems (22:4), pp. 269-281.
  85. Pentland, B. T. 1999. "Building Process Theory with Narrative: From Description to Explanation," Academy of Management Review (24:4), pp. 711-724.
  86. Raymond, E. 1999. The Cathedral and the Bazaar: Musings on Linux and Open Source by an Accidental Revolutionary. Sebastopol, California: O'Reilly & Associates.
  87. Ribes, D., Jackson, S., Geiger, S., Burton, M., and Finholt, T. 2013. "Artifacts That Organize: Delegation in the Distributed Organization," Information and Organization (23:1), pp. 1-14.
  88. Riccucci, N. M., Van Ryzin, G. G., and Li, H. 2016. "Representative Bureaucracy and the Willingness to Coproduce: An Experimental Study," Public Administration Review (76:1), pp. 121-130.
  89. Ring, P. S., and van de Ven, A. H. 1992. "Structuring Cooperative Relationships between Organizations," Strategic Management Journal (13:7), pp. 483-498.
  90. Roberts, J., Hann, I.-H., and Slaughter, S. 2006. "Understanding the Motivations, Participation, and Performance of Open Source Software Developers: A Longitudinal Study of the Apache Projects," Management Science (52:7), pp. 984-999.
  91. Schmidt, K., and Bannon, L. 1992. "Taking Cscw Seriously," Computer supported cooperative work (CSCW) (1:1), pp. 7-40.
  92. Shah, S. K. 2006. "Motivation, Governance, and the Viability of Hybrid Forms in Open Source Software Development," Management Science (52:7), pp. 1000-1014.
  93. Shaikh, M., and Vaast, E. 2016. "Folding and Unfolding: Balancing Openness and Transparency in Open Source Communities," Information Systems Research (27:4), pp. 813-833.
  94. Sharma, S., Sugumaran, V., and Rajagopalan, B. 2002. "A Framework for Creating Hybrid-Open Source Software Communities," Information Systems Journal (12:1), pp. 7-26.
  95. Spaeth, S., von Krogh, G., and He, F. 2015. "Research Note-Perceived Firm Attributes and Intrinsic Motivation in Sponsored Open Source Software Projects," Information Systems Research (26:1), pp. 224-237.
  96. Stanko, M. A. 2016. "Toward a Theory of Remixing in Online Innovation Communities," Information Systems Research (27:4), pp. 773-791.
  97. Strauss, A. 1987. Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  98. Strauss, A., and Corbin, J. 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  99. Strode, D. E., Huff, S. L., Hope, B., and Link, S. 2012. "Coordination in Co-Located Agile Software Development Projects," Journal of Systems and Software (85:6), pp. 1222-1238.
  100. Sundararajan, A., Provost, F., Oestreicher-Singer, G., and Aral, S. 2013. "Research Commentary- Information in Digital, Economic, and Social Networks," Information Systems Research (24:4), pp. 883-905.
  101. Tsoukas, H. 1989. "The Validity of Idiographic Research Explanations," Academy of Management Review (14:4), pp. 551-561.
  102. Tullio, D. D., and Staples, D. S. 2014. "The Governance and Control of Open Source Software Projects " Journal of Management Information Systems (30:3), pp. 49-80
  103. Venters, W., Oborn, E., and Barrett, M. 2014. "A Trichordal Temporal Approach to Digital Coordination: The Sociomaterial Mangling of the Cern Grid," MIS Quarterly (38:3), pp. 927-A918.
  104. von Hippel, E. 2001. "Innovation by User Communities: Learning from Open-Source Software," MIT Sloan Management Review (42:4), pp. 82-86.
  105. von Krogh, G., Haefliger, S., Spaeth, S., and Wallin, W. 2012. "Carrots and Rainbows: Motivation and Social Practice in Open Source Software Development," MIS Quarterly (36:2), pp. 649-676.
  106. von Krogh, G., and von Hippel, E. 2006. "The Promise of Research on Open Source Software," Management Science (52:7), pp. 975-983.
  107. Weber, M. 1946. Bureaucracy. From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. New York: Oxford University Press
  108. Weber, S. 2005. "Patterns of Governance in Open Source," in Open Sources 2.0: The Continuing Evolution, C. DiBona, M. Stone and D. Cooper (eds.). Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly, pp. 361-372.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shaikh, M., & Henfridsson, O.
Affiliations
University of Warwick (GB)
Corresponding author
Shaikh, Maha
ORCID
Venue
Information and Organization
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-06
Volume
27
Issue
2
Pages
116-135
ISSN
1471-7727 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.infoandorg.2017.04.001
OpenAlex
W2607998937
Cited by
67
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 6
FWCI
6.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Information and Organization (publishedVersion)
  • Warwick Research Archive Portal (University of Warwick) (acceptedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Open Source Software Innovations
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Digital Platforms and Economics
Keywords
open source governance, coordination mechanisms, Linux kernel, version control, authoritarian regimes, oligarchy, federation, meritocracy, legitimation, open source communities

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