Cited by 90Knowledge Management and SharingWikis in Education and CollaborationDigital Platforms and Economics

The Sustainability of Polycentric Information Commons1

Mindel, Vitali, Mathiassen, Lars, Rai, Arun·2018·MIS Quarterly

Abstract

Research on various distributed online information systems—including blogging, crowdsourcing, media sharing, online communities, online reviews, open source software development, social media, wikis, peer-to-peer file sharing, and two-sided electronic markets—shows that the level of user engagement and overall activity in most systems eventually decline substantially. Here, we draw on Hardin’s theory of the tragedy of the commons and Ostrom’s theory of polycentric governance to introduce a unifying theory of polycentric information commons that explains these phenomena. Further, our theory illuminates how polycentric governance principles, as manifested in system rules and infrastructure features, counterbalance various sustainability threats arising from unrestricted participation. By integrating previous research findings and offering new insights into information and governance practices, the theory, practically applied, can enhance the likelihood of sustained participation across diverse, decentralized online information systems. We conclude by discussing how researchers can use the theory in empirical investigations and how they can engage in theoretical elaborations.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.25300/misq/2018/14015

Cites

158 of 158 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. Brubaker, 1997, The Tragedy of the Public Budgetary Commons, Independent Review, 1, 353
  2. Habermas, 1987, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume 2: Lifeworld and System: A Critique of Functionalist Reason
  3. Hess, 2003, Ideas, Artifacts, and Facilities: Information as a Common-Pool Resource, Law and Contemporary Problems, 66, 111
  4. Polanyi, 1951, The Logic of Liberty
  5. Prahalad, 2013, The Future of Competition: Co-creating Unique Value with Customers
  6. Ramaswamy, 2010, The Power of Co-creation: Build it with Them to Boost Growth, Productivity, and Profits
  7. Ries, 2011, The Lean Startup: How Today’s Entrepreneurs Use Continuous Innovation to Create Radically Successful Businesses
  8. Schlager, 1999, Property Rights Regimes and Coastal Fisheries: An Empirical Analysis, 99
  9. Tapscott, 2008, Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mindel, V., Mathiassen, L., & Rai, A.
Affiliations
  • Virginia Tech (US)
  • Georgia State University (US)
Venue
MIS Quarterly
Publisher
MIS Quarterly
Published
2018-06-01
Volume
42
Issue
2
Pages
607-631
ISSN
  • 0276-7783 (ISSN-L)
  • 2162-9730
OpenAlex
W2807457146
Cited by
90
References
158
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 5 · 2017: 1
FWCI
15.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
MIS Quarterly (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Knowledge Management and Sharing
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Wikis in Education and Collaboration
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Digital Platforms and Economics
Keywords
polycentric governance, tragedy of the commons, information commons, social media, online communities, crowdsourcing, peer-to-peer file sharing, two-sided markets, open source software development, wikis, online reviews, media sharing

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