Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 218

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Understanding customer knowledge sharing in web‐based discussion boards: An exploratory study

Lee, Matthew K.O., Cheung, Christy M.K., Lim, Kai H., Ling Sia, Choon·2006·Internet Research

Abstract

Purpose: The proliferation and advance of web‐based technologies create expanded opportunities for retailers to gain a better understanding of their customers. However, the success of these web‐based discussion boards depends solely on whether customers are willing to share their knowledge and experience with other customers in these discussion boards. Thus, this study aims at identifying the factors that drive knowledge sharing among customers in web‐based discussion boards. Design/methodology/approach: An exploratory study with 104 respondents was conducted to identify and categorize the key factors of customer knowledge sharing in web‐based discussion boards. Findings: The results indicate that the enjoyment of helping others is the most frequently cited reason for customer knowledge sharing in web‐based discussion boards. On the other hand, the lack of knowledge self‐efficacy is the mostly cited reason explaining why customers do not want to share knowledge with others. Research limitations/implications: The exploratory analysis suggests that the underlying reasons that motivate and inhibit customers to share are very different. There is a need to integrate multiple theoretical perspectives from across the social and technical domains if this phenomenon is to be better understood. Practical implications: Building upon the findings of this study, some generic guidelines for retailers and web designers for promoting customer sharing in web‐based discussion boards are outlined. Originality/value: This research is one of the first studies to use the socio‐technical perspective to investigate customer knowledge sharing phenomena in web‐based discussion boards.

Overview

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 · 10.1108/10662240610673709

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 218

Metadata

Authors
Lee, M. K. O., Cheung, C. M. K., Lim, K. H., & Ling Sia, C.
Venue
Internet Research
Publisher
Emerald
Published
2006-05-01
Volume
16
Issue
3
Pages
289-303
ISSN
1066-2243 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1545970977
Cited by
218
References
2
FWCI
26.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Understanding customer knowledge sharing in web‐based discussion boards: An exploratory study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1108/10662240610673709
The paper
Lee, M. K. O., Cheung, C. M. K., Lim, K. H., & Ling Sia, C. (2006). Understanding customer knowledge sharing in web‐based discussion boards: An exploratory study. Internet Research. https://doi.org/10.1108/10662240610673709

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.