Thank you for such a salient research on polarization!
The big question is of course how to generalize the findings of the article to cases outside of Wikipedia crowd-sourced knowledge . In exploring the mechanisms of polarized collaboration, you mention the use of Wikimedia institutions and guidelines for editors to debate issues as one of the mechanisms. This may suggest that whether a polarized team produces higher quality results may depend on the configuration of the institutional structure around the team. Based on what you learned from this study, are there certain institutional features and context you think are more conducive to higher quality results from a polarized team? What configurations may work well and which ones do not? For instance, is the fact that the collaboration/argumentation process is online conducive to a higher quality article insofar as online anonymity allows editors to be more honestly outspoken about their views? What would it mean for "off-line" collaborative environments?
Thank you for such a salient research on polarization!
The big question is of course how to generalize the findings of the article to cases outside of Wikipedia crowd-sourced knowledge . In exploring the mechanisms of polarized collaboration, you mention the use of Wikimedia institutions and guidelines for editors to debate issues as one of the mechanisms. This may suggest that whether a polarized team produces higher quality results may depend on the configuration of the institutional structure around the team. Based on what you learned from this study, are there certain institutional features and context you think are more conducive to higher quality results from a polarized team? What configurations may work well and which ones do not? For instance, is the fact that the collaboration/argumentation process is online conducive to a higher quality article insofar as online anonymity allows editors to be more honestly outspoken about their views? What would it mean for "off-line" collaborative environments?