Investigating Ortega Hypothesis in Q&A portals: An Analysis of StackOverflow

TL;DR

This study examines the Ortega Hypothesis within StackOverflow, analyzing whether large numbers of average contributors are essential for the platform's effective functioning and how their contributions impact system success.

Contribution

It is the first detailed investigation of the Ortega Hypothesis in a large-scale online Q&A platform, providing insights into the role of average contributors.

Findings

Masses contribute small but valuable inputs.

System remains functional without some contributors.

Insights can inform incentivization policies.

Abstract

Ortega Hypothesis considers masses, i.e., a large number of average people who are not specially qualified as being instrumental in any system's progress. This hypothesis has been reasonably examined in the scientific domain where it has been supported by a few works while refuted by many others, resulting in no clear consensus. While the hypothesis has only been explored in the scientific domain so far, it has hardly been examined in other fields. Given the large-scale collaboration facilitated by the modern Q&A portals where a crowd with a diverse skill-set contributes, an investigation of this hypothesis becomes necessary for informed policy-making. In this work, we investigate the research question inspired by Ortega Hypothesis in StackOverflow where we examine the contribution made by masses and check whether the system may continue to function well even in their absence. The results point towards the importance of masses in Q&A portals for the little but useful contribution that they provide. The insights obtained from the study may help in devising informed incentivization policies enabling better utilization of the potential of the users.