The DOI matches its Crossref record; 97 of the 98 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Sharing Versus Pseudo-Sharing in Web 2.0
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.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“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
Citations
Cites
Granovetter, M. S. (1973) · American Journal of Sociology · doi:10.1086/225469 · Cited by 40,491
Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness
Granovetter, M. (1985) · American Journal of Sociology · doi:10.1086/228311 · Cited by 28,745
Bowling alone: the collapse and revival of American community
(2000) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.38-2454 · Cited by 28,723
Imagined Communities. Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism
Reid, A. J. S. (1985) · Pacific Affairs · doi:10.2307/2759245 · Cited by 25,964
Putnam, R. (2000) · doi:10.1145/358916.361990 · Cited by 17,114
(1976) · Cited by 10,813
Co-creation experiences: The next practice in value creation
Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004) · Journal of Interactive Marketing · doi:10.1002/dir.20015 · Cited by 7,178
Toffler, A. (1980) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 4,357
Benkler, Y. R. (2017) · Yale University Press eBooks · doi:10.12987/9780300127232 · Cited by 3,728
Archive Fever: A Freudian Impression
Derrida, J., & Prenowitz, E. (1995) · diacritics · doi:10.2307/465144 · Cited by 3,523
Research works printed but not linked: 7
- Eladhari M 2007. The player’s journey. In: JP Williams, J Heide Smith (Eds.): The Players’ Realm : Studies on the Culture of Video Games and Gaming . Jefferson, NC: McFarland and Company, pp. 171-187 .
- Hemetsberger A in press- ‘Let the source be with you!’-Practices of sharing in free and open-source Communities. In: W Siitzl, F Stalder, R Maier, T Hug (Eds.): Cultures and Ethics of Sharing . Innsbruck: Innsbruck University Press.
- 10.1177/1451444812450684 · DOI
- Jonsson P 2007. A tale of a car sharing organization (cso) monster. In: H Brembeck, KM Ekstrom, M Morck (Eds.): Little Monsters: (De)coupling Assemblages of Consumption . Berlin: Lit Verlag, pp. 149-164 .
- Singh S, Lyon D 2013. Suveilling consumers: The social consequences of data processing on Amazon.com. In: R Belk, R Llamas (Eds.): Routledge Companion to Digital Consumption . London: Routledge, pp. 319–332.
- Tedeschi B 2007. E-commerce Report: Meet Your Neighbors, But Just Not in Person. New York Times , October 22, Online Edition.
- Terranova T 2004. Network Culture: Politics for theInformation Age . London: Pluto Press.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The sharing economy: Why people participate in collaborative consumption
Hamari, J., Sjöklint, M., & Ukkonen, A. (2016) · Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.23552 · Cited by 3,439
“We want to emphasize that our definition of the sharing economy differs slightly from those of other scholars (Belk, 2007, 2010), as well as some other definitions of “sharing economy” (Lessig, 2008; Sacks, 2011) or “collaborative consumption” (Belk, 2014a, 2014b; Botsman & Rogers, 2010).”
You are what you can access: Sharing and collaborative consumption online
Belk, R. (2014) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.10.001 · Cited by 2,951
“When sharing is an inclusive act that is likely to make the recipient a part of a pseudo-family and our aggregate extended self (Belk, 1988, 2013), it can be described as “sharing in” (Belk, 2010; Ingold, 1986).”
BackgroundSelf-citationPutting the sharing economy into perspective
Frenken, K., & Schor, J. (2017) · Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions · doi:10.1016/j.eist.2017.01.003 · Cited by 1,105
“However, while idle capacity was generally available to family and friends for free in the past, researchers and commentators have expressed concern about the viability of non-monetized sharing within networks as people prefer earning money (Belk, 2014; Schor, 2015b).”
BackgroundPromises and paradoxes of the sharing economy: An organizing framework
Acquier, A., Daudigeos, T., & Pinkse, J. (2017) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2017.07.006 · Cited by 880
“Such debates have led to distinctions between ‘true’ and ‘pseudo’ sharing (Belk, 2014b), based on the idea that ‘true’ sharing involves non-reciprocity (Belk, 2010).”
BackgroundInfluentialHawlitschek, F., Notheisen, B., & Teubner, T. (2018) · Electronic Commerce Research and Applications · doi:10.1016/j.elerap.2018.03.005 · Cited by 768
Metadata
- 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)
- 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
- 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 › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Knowledge Management and Sharing
- Social Sciences › Communication › 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
