<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><xml><records><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Mark S. Ackerman</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Juri Dachtera</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Pipek, Volkmar</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Wulf, Volker</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Sharing Knowledge and Expertise: The CSCW View of Knowledge Management</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) Journal</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">collective intelligence</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">cscw</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">expertise finding</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">expertise sharing</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">information access</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">knowledge sharing</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">QA</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2013</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">01/2013</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Complete</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">22</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">531-573</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;Knowledge Management (KM) is a diffuse and controversial term, which has been used by a large number of research disciplines. CSCW, over the last 20 years, has taken a critical stance towards most of these approaches, and instead, CSCW shifted the focus towards a practice-based perspective. This paper surveys CSCW researchers’ viewpoints on what has become called ‘knowledge sharing’ and ‘expertise sharing’. These are based in an understanding of the social contexts of knowledge work and practices, as well as in an emphasis on communication among knowledgeable humans. The paper provides a summary and overview of the two strands of knowledge and expertise sharing in CSCW, which, from an analytical standpoint, roughly represent ’generations’ of research: an ’object-centric’ and a ’people-centric’ view. We also survey the challenges and opportunities ahead.&lt;/p&gt;
</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>47</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Huh, Jina</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Mark S. Ackerman</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Collaborative help in chronic disease management: supporting individualized problems</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer–Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW’12)</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">diabetes</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">health informatics</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">health information</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">QA</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2012</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">01/02/2012</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Complete</style></url></web-urls></urls><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;Coping with chronic illness disease is a long and lonely journey, because the burden of managing the illness on a daily basis is placed upon the patients themselves. In this paper, we present our findings for how diabetes patient support groups help one another find individualized strategies for managing diabetes. Through field observations of face-to-face diabetes support groups, content analysis of an online diabetes community, and interviews, we found several help interactions that are critical in helping patients in finding individualized solutions. Those are: (1) patients operationalize their experiences to easily contextualize and share executable strategies; (2) operationalization has to be done within the larger context of sharing illness trajectories; and (3) the support groups develop common understanding towards diabetes management. We further discuss how our findings translate into design implications for supporting chronic illness patients in online community settings.&lt;/p&gt;
</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>47</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Jiang Yang</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Morris, Meredith Ringel</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Jaime Teevan</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Lada A. Adamic</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Mark S. Ackerman</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Culture Matters: A Survey Study of Social Q&amp;A Behavior</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Proceedings of the International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM’11)</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">collaborative help</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">collective help</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">intercultural</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">QA</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">social search</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2011</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">05/2010</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Complete</style></url></web-urls></urls><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;Online social networking tools are used around the world by people to ask questions of their friends, because friends provide direct, reliable, contextualized, and interactive responses. However, although the tools used in different cultures for question asking are often very similar, the way they are used can be very different, reflecting unique inherent cultural characteristics. We present the results of a survey designed to elicit cultural differences in people’s social question asking behaviors across the United States, the United Kingdom, China, and India. The survey received responses from 933 people distributed across the four countries who held similar job roles and were employed by a single organization. Responses included information about the questions they ask via social networking tools, and their motivations for asking and answering questions online. The results reveal culture as a consistently significant factor in predicting people’s social question and answer behavior. The prominent cultural differences we observe might be traced to people’s inherent cultural characteristics (e.g., their cognitive patterns and social orientation), and should be comprehensively considered in designing social search systems.&lt;/p&gt;
</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>47</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Kevin K. Nam</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Mark S. Ackerman</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Lada A. Adamic</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Questions in, Knowledge iN? A study of Naver’s Question Answering Community</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’09)</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">collective help</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">expertise finding</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">information access</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">online communities</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Q&amp;A communities</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">QA</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">question-answering</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">social computing</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2009</style></year></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Complete</style></url></web-urls></urls><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;Large general-purposed community question-answering sites are becoming popular as a new venue for generating knowledge and helping users in their information needs. In this paper we analyze the characteristics of knowledge generation and user participation behavior in the largest question-answering online community in South Korea, Naver Knowledge-iN. We collected and analyzed over 2.6 million question/answer pairs from fifteen categories between 2002 and 2007, and have interviewed twenty six users to gain insights into their motivations,roles, usage and expertise. We find altruism, learning, and competency are frequent motivations for top answerers to participate, but that participation is often highly intermittent. Using a simple measure of user performance, we find that higher levels of participation correlate with better performance. We also observe that users are motivated in part through a point system to build a comprehensive knowledge database. These and other insights have significant implications for future knowledge generating online communities.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>47</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Hansen, Derek L</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Mark S. Ackerman</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Resnick, Paul J</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Munson, Sean</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Virtual community maintenance with a collaborative repository</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology Annual Meeting (ASIST&#039;07)</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">answer repository</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">expertise sharing</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">knowledge distillation</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">online communities</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Q&amp;A communities</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">QA</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2007</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">10/2007</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">MISSING_URL_KEYWORDS</style></url></web-urls></urls><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1–20</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;Virtual communities, like all communities, require ongoing community maintenance activities. This paper presents an empirical study examining how a wiki repository was used to help overcome some of the community maintenance challenges common to help-based email list discussions. Specifically, we found that inclusion of off-topic but related content on the wiki enabled list members to keep the discussion on-topic while still addressing the needs of members. Offloading of repetitive and potentially contentious “holy war” debates to the wiki encouraged list members to summarize their arguments into a meaningful information product. The community&#039;s use of the wiki in helping answer frequently asked questions helped attract new members and helped them gain the knowledge they needed to comfortably contribute to the email list. It also helped active participants answer questions more efficiently and effectively by supporting the reuse of information. Finally, the wiki supported peripheral participation by new and former members. This study demonstrates that the architecture of information collections and information flows in an online community has a significant impact on the social processes related to community maintenance.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record></records></xml>