Credibility of Information: an Overview of the Concept in the Digital Age

• Authors: Shishenkova Magdalena

Title variants

PL

Wiarygodność informacji w epoce cyfrowej: przegląd wybranych koncepcji

• Languages of publication: EN PL

Abstracts

EN

PURPOSE/THESIS: The primary objective of this paper is to review the concept of credibility of information in the context of the digital environment and in the light of research over the last decade. Its purpose is to synthesize related concepts and trends in perceptions of credibility in interdisciplinary dialogue. APPROACH/METHODS: A review of the relevant scholarly literature. The study sketches how the concept of credibility has emerged in philosophy, psychology, communication and information sciences. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: A number of constructs associated to credibility have been identified and some related notions in information research in the last decade have been summarized. There is presented a short overview of elements of the digital context, that influence this notion. The author of the article suggests that recent research provides grounds for more than a communicative approach to authority construct and acknowledgment of diversity. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: The article extends the dialogue by outlining the scope of the concept, its complexity, together with its multi-disciplinary value.

PL

CEL/TEZA: Podstawowym celem artykułu jest prezentacja wybranych koncepcji wiarygodności informacji w odniesieniu do środowiska cyfrowego z ostatnich dziesięciu lat. Dodatkowym celem badań była próba syntetycznego ujęcia pojęć związanych z zagadnieniem wiarygodności informacji w ujęciu interdyscyplinarnym. KONCEPCJA/METODY BADAŃ: W badaniach zastosowano metodę analizy i krytyki piśmiennictwa. Uwzględniono również próby interpretacji pojęcia wiarygodności informacji w ujęciu filozoficznym, psychologicznym oraz z punktu widzenia nauki o komunikacji oraz informacji naukowej. WYNIKI I WNIOSKI: W artykule wskazano na kilka konstruktów pojęciowych związanych z pojęciem wiarygodności oraz scharakteryzowano próby ich interpretacji w kontekście badań nad informacją w ostatnich dziesięciu latach. Przedstawiono również zagadnienie wpływu środowiska cyfrowego na postrzeganie zjawiska wiarygodności informacji. W artykule stwierdzono, że dotychczasowe wyniki badań dają podstawę do dalszych dociekań nad zjawiskiem wiarygodności informacji wykraczających poza ujęcie komunikacyjne. ORYGINALNOŚĆ/WARTOŚĆ POZNAWCZA: Zaprezentowane wyniki badań stanowią głos w dyskursie naukowym, którego przedmiotem jest zagadnienie wiarygodności informacji poprzez charakterystykę jego zakresu pojęciowego i wewnętrznej złożoności oraz jego multidyscyplinarny charakter.

Keywords

EN

Credibility of information; Digital content; Digital age; User perception

PL

Wiarygodność informacji; Treści cyfrowe; Epoka cyfrowa; Percepcja użytkownika informacji

• Publisher: Stowarzyszenie Bibliotekarzy Polskich i Wydział Dziennikarstwa, Informacji i Bibliologii. Uniwersytet Warszawski
• Journal: Zagadnienia Informacji Naukowej - Studia Informacyjne
• Year: 2016
• Volume: 54
• Issue: 1(107)
• Pages: 85-94

Dates

received

2015-11-02

revised

2015-12-08

accepted

2016-07-12

Contributors

author

Shishenkova Magdalena

• Laboratoire GERiiCO, Universite de Lille, France

References

• Batini, C.; Palmonari M.; Viscusi, G. (2014). Opening the closed world: A survey of information quality research in the wild. In: Floridi, L.; Illari, P. (eds.). The Philosophy of Information Quality. Heidelberg: Springer, 43–74.
• Beldad, A., De Jong, M.; Steehouder, M. (2010). How shall I trust the faceless and the intangible? A literature review on the antecedents of online trust. Computers in Human Behavior, 26 (5), 857–869.
• Bergson-Michelson, T. G. I. (2012). Believe it or not: Authority and credibility of sources on the Web, Google, [video file], [12.07.2016], https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUp3P-fPmBM
• Betsch, C.; Brewer, N. T.; Brocard, P.; Davies, P.; Gaissmaier, W.; Haase, N.; ... Stryk, M. (2012). Opportunities and challenges of Web 2.0 for vaccination decisions. Vaccine, 30(25), 3727–3733.
• Brabazon, T. (2006). The Google effect: Googling, blogging, wikis and the flattening of expertise. Libri, 56, 157–167.
• Choi, W.; Stvilia, B. (2015). Web credibility assessment: Conceptualization, operationalization, variability, and models. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(12), 2399–2414.
• Dervin, B. (2011). Connecting with Specific Publics: Treating Communication Communicatively. Eastern spotlight, [video file], [12.07.2016], https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foyH6eoIseQ
• Dong, X. L. (2015). Knowledge Vault and Knowledge-Based Trust – Xin Luna Dong of Google. Stanford University, [video file], [12.07.2016], https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6tmDdrBnpU
• Dong, X. L.; Gabrilovich, E.; Murphy, K.; Dang, V.; Horn, W.; Lugaresi, C.; Sun, S.; Zhang, W. (2015). Knowledge-Based Trust: Estimating the Trustworthiness of Web Sources, [online], arXiv preprint arXiv:1502.03519, [12.07.2016], http://arxiv.org/pdf/1502.03519.pdf
• Doty, C. (2015). Social Epistemology and Cognitive Authority in Online Comments about Vaccine Safety. iConference 2015 Proceedings, [online], [12.07.2016], https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/73664/210_ready.pdf
• Flanagin, A. J.; Metzger, M. J. (2007). The role of site features, user attributes, and information verification behaviors on the perceived credibility of web-based information. New Media & Society, 9(2), 319–342.
• Garfinkel, S. L. (2008). Wikipedia and the Meaning of Truth. Technology Review, 111(6), 84–86.
• Goldman, A.; Blanchard T. (2015). Social Epistemology. In: E. N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2015 ed.). Stanford: The Metaphysics Research Lab.
• Goodrich, M. A.; Stirling, W. C.; Boer, E. R. (2000). Satisficing Revisited. Minds and Machines: Journal for Artificial Intelligence, Philosophy and Cognitive Science , 10(1), 79–109.
• Jeon, G. Y. R.; Reih, S. Y. (2014). Answers from the crowd: How credible are strangers in social Q&A? [online] iConference 2014, 663–668, [12.07.2016], https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/handle/2142/47266
• Kottasova, I. (2015). The truth, according to Google [online]. CNN Money, [12.07.2016], http://money.cnn.com/2015/03/04/news/google-truth-ranking/
• Lackaff, D.; Cheong, P. H. (2008). Communicating authority online: Perceptions and interpretations of Internet credibility among college students. Open Communication Journal, 2, 143–155.
• Lankes, R. D. (2008). Credibility on the internet: shifting from authority to reliability. Journal of Documentation, 64(5), 667–686.
• Metzger, M. J.; Flanagin, A. J.; Medders, R. B. (2010). Social and heuristic approaches to credibility evaluation online. Journal of Communication, 60(3), 413–439.
• Metzger, M. J.; Flanagin, A. J. (2013). Credibility and trust of information in online environments: The use of cognitive heuristics. Journal of Pragmatics, 59, 210–220.
• Metzger, M. J.; Flanagin, A. J. (2015). Psychological approaches to credibility assessment online. In: S. Shyam Sundar (ed.) The Handbook of the Psychology of Communication Technology , New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell, 445–466.
• Nielek, R.; Wawer, A.; Jankowski-Lorek, M.; Wierzbicki, A. (2013). Temporal, cultural and thematic aspects of web credibility. Social Informatics, 419–428.
• Nurse, J. R. C.; Agrafiotis, I.; Goldsmith, M.; Creese, S.; Lamberts, K. (2014). Two sides of the coin: measuring and communicating the trustworthiness of online information. Journal of Trust Management, [online], 1(5), [12.07.2016], http://journaloftrustmanagement.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2196–064X-1–5
• Pentland, A. (2014). Social Physics: How Good Ideas Spread-The Lessons from a New Science. Talks at Google, [video file], [12.07.2016], https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMBl0ttu-Ow
• Rieh, S.Y. (2009). Credibility and Human Information Behavior [online]. Presentation at Information Ethics Roundtable Misinformation and Disinformation April 3–4, 2009. University of Arizona, Tucson. [12.07.2016], http://www.powershow.com/view/3d0dbf-NmIwZ/Credibility_and_Hu-man_Information_Behavior_powerpoint_ppt_presentation
• Rieh, S. Y. (2010). Credibility and Cognitive Authority of Information. In M. Bates & M. N. Maack (Eds.) Encyclopedia of Library and Information Sciences, 3rd Ed. New York: Taylor & Francis, 1337–1344.
• Rieh, S. Y.; Danielson, D. R. (2007). Credibility: A multidisciplinary framework. Annual review of information science and technology, 41(1), 307–364.
• Rieh, S. Y.; Morris, M. R.; Metzger, M. J.; Francke, H.; Jeon, G. Y. (2014). Credibility perceptions of content contributors and consumers in social media. MEETProceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 51(1), 1–4.
• Savolainen, R. (2011). Judging the quality and credibility of information in Internet discussion fo-rums. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(7), 1243–1256.
• Surowiecki, J. (2004). The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies, and Nations. New York: Doubleday.
• Weinberger, D. (2002). Small Pieces Loosely Joined: A Unified Theory of the Web . Cambridge, MA: Perseus.
• Weinberger, D. (2015). Is there a library-sized hole in the internet? [online], [12.07.2016], http://www.researchinformation.info/news/news_story.php?news_id=1847
• Zhao, J. C.; Fu, W. T.; Zhang, H.; Zhao, S.; Duh, H. B. L. (2015). To Risk or Not to Risk? Improving Financial Risk-Taking of Older Adults by Online Social Information, [online], [12.07.2016], http://home.uchicago.edu/hanzhe/research/1208peereffects_WP.pdf

Identifiers

ISSN

0324-8194

EISSN

2392-2648

DOI

https://doi.org/10.36702/zin.289