Many online communities rely on postpublication moderation where contributors, even those that are perceived as being risky, are allowed to publish material immediately and where moderation takes place after the fact. An alternative arrangement involves moderating content before publication. A range of communities have argued against prepublication moderation by suggesting that it makes contributing less enjoyable for new members and that it will distract established community members with extra moderation work. We present an empirical analysis of the effects of a prepublication moderation system called FlaggedRevs that was deployed by several Wikipedia language editions. We used panel data from 17 large Wikipedia editions to test a series of hypotheses related to the effect of the system on activity levels and contribution quality. We found that the system was very effective at keeping low-quality contributions from ever becoming visible. Although there is some evidence that the system discouraged participation among users without accounts, our analysis suggests that the system's effects on contribution volume and quality were moderate at most. Our findings imply that concerns regarding the major negative effects of prepublication moderation systems on contribution quality and project productivity may be overstated.
翻译:许多在线社区依靠出版后节制,即允许撰稿人,即使是那些被认为有风险的撰稿人,立即出版材料,并在事后节制。另一种安排是在出版前对内容进行调适。许多社区反对出版前节制,认为这样做会降低新成员的享受程度,而且会分散已确立的社区成员的注意力,而且会进行额外的温和工作。我们对由几个维基百科语言版本部署的出版前节制系统FragerRevs的影响进行了经验分析。我们利用17个大型维基百科版本的小组数据测试与系统对活动水平和贡献质量的影响有关的一系列假设。我们发现,这个系统非常有效地保持低质量贡献的可见度。虽然有证据表明这个系统阻碍用户在没有账户的情况下参与,但我们的分析表明,这个系统对捐款量和质量的影响最多是温和的。我们的研究结果表明,对出版前节制制度对捐款质量和项目生产率的重大负面影响的关切可能被夸大。