Cited by 90Wikis in Education and CollaborationOpen Source Software InnovationsExperimental Behavioral Economics Studies

Experimental Study of Informal Rewards in Peer Production

Open access
Restivo, Michael, van de Rijt, Arnout·2012·PLoS ONE

Abstract

We test the effects of informal rewards in online peer production. Using a randomized, experimental design, we assigned editing awards or "barnstars" to a subset of the 1% most productive Wikipedia contributors. Comparison with the control group shows that receiving a barnstar increases productivity by 60% and makes contributors six times more likely to receive additional barnstars from other community members, revealing that informal rewards significantly impact individual effort.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0034358

Cites

15 of 15 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?

  • Those at the top of the chart may experience the opposite effect, whereby a provisional reward for a serendipitous move could increase their confidence and motivation to persevere.

    “Conversely, those at the top of the chart may experience the opposite effect, whereby a provisional reward for a serendipitous move could increase their confidence and motivation to persevere (Restivo & van de Rijt, 2012).”

    From Relative Feedback Increases Disparities in Effort and Performance in Crowdsourcing Contests (2022) · cites this paper as Restivo & van de Rijt, 2012

    The Methods describe randomly awarding barnstars to a sample of the top 1% of Wikipedia editors, and Results and Discussion report greater sustained productivity and less discontinuation among recipients (page numbers not provided). This supports the possibility that a reward helps high-performing contributors persevere. The paper does not measure confidence or study rewards for a serendipitous move. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

1 of the 16 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Restivo, M., & van de Rijt, A.
Affiliations
State University of New York (US)
Corresponding author
Restivo, Michael
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2012-03-29
Volume
7
Issue
3
Pages
e34358
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2108478329
Cited by
90
References
16
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 8 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 1
FWCI
25.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Wikimedia Foundation
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Wikis in Education and Collaboration
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Open Source Software Innovations
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
Keywords
peer production, Wikipedia, online communities, recognition
MeSH terms
Efficiency, Peer Group, Peer Review, Research Design, Reward, Chi-Square Distribution, Social Media

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