CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 622Sharing Economy and PlatformsKnowledge Management and SharingMedia and Digital Communication

Sharing Versus Pseudo-Sharing in Web 2.0

Belk, Russell·2014·The Anthropologist
DOI 10.1080/09720073.2014.11891518
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The Internet has opened up a new era in sharing. There has also been an explosion of studies and writings about sharing via the Internet. This includes a series of books, articles, and web discussions on the topic. However, many of these apparent cases of sharing are better characterized as pseudo-sharing — commodity exchanges wrapped in a vocabulary of sharing. The present paper reviews subsequent research and theorizing as well as controversies that have emerged surrounding sharing and what is best regarded as pseudo-sharing — a wolf-insheep’s-clothing phenomenon whereby commodity exchange and potential exploitation of consumer co-creators present themselves in the guise of sharing. The paper begins with a pair of vignettes that highlight some of the contested meanings of sharing. By detailing four types of pseudo-sharing and four types of sharing that are specifically enabled or enhanced by Internet technologies, the paper argues that pseudo-sharing is distinguished by the presence of profit motives, the absence of feelings of community, and expectations of reciprocity. It concludes with a discussion of theoretical, practical, and ethical implications of pseudo-sharing and offer suggestions for future research.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/09720073.2014.11891518

Cites

97 of 97 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • Technology innovations created new alternatives for sharing, simplifying the process compared to the pre-accessible internet age.

    “These innovations have created new alternatives for sharing, for both communal and utilitarian purposes, simplifying the process compared to pre-accessible internet age (Belk 2014).”

    From A cross-cultural study of nonprofit self-organized ridesharing (2024) · cites this paper as Belk 2014

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 98 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Belk, R.
Affiliations
York University (CA)
Corresponding author
Belk, Russell
ORCID
Belk, Russell
Venue
The Anthropologist
Publisher
Kamla Raj Enterprises
Published
2014-07
Volume
18
Issue
1
Pages
7-23
ISSN
0972-0073 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1080/09720073.2014.11891518
OpenAlex
W2184849112
Cited by
622
References
98
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 44 · 2022: 73 · 2021: 77 · 2020: 90 · 2019: 86 · 2018: 62 · 2017: 68 · 2016: 38 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1
FWCI
126.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
The Anthropologist (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Sharing Economy and Platforms
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Knowledge Management and Sharing
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Media and Digital Communication
Keywords
sharing, Web 2.0, commodity exchange, customer co-creation, profit motive, reciprocity, community, ethics of sharing, internet technologies

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