(Alternative names for this keyword)
|Export and share|
|BibTeX, CSV, RDF, JSON|
|Browse properties · List of keywords|
credibility is included as keyword or extra keyword in 0 datasets, 0 tools and 17 publications.
There is no datasets for this keyword.
There is no tools for this keyword.
|Title||Author(s)||Published in||Language||DateThis property is a special property in this wiki.||Abstract||R||C|
|Designing information savvy societies: An introduction to assessability||Andrea Forte
|Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings||English||2014||This paper provides first steps toward an empirically grounded design vocabulary for assessable design as an HCI response to the global need for better information literacy skills. We present a framework for synthesizing literatures called the Interdisciplinary Literacy Framework and use it to highlight gaps in our understanding of information literacy that HCI as a field is particularly well suited to fill. We report on two studies that lay a foundation for developing guidelines for assessable information system design. The first is a study of Wikipedians', librarians', and laypersons' information assessment practices from which we derive two important features of assessable designs: Information provenance and stewardship. The second is an experimental study in which we operationalize these concepts in designs and test them using Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk).||0||0|
|Does formal authority still matter in the age of wisdom of crowds: Perceived credibility, peer and professor endorsement in relation to college students' wikipedia use for academic purposes||Sook Lim||Proceedings of the ASIST Annual Meeting||English||2013||This study explores whether or not formal authority still matters for college students using Wikipedia by examining the variables of individual perceived credibility, peer endorsement and professor endorsement in relation to students' academic use of Wikipedia. A web survey was used to collected data in fall 2011. A total of 142 students participated in the study, of which a total of 123 surveys were useable for this study. The findings show that the more professors approved of Wikipedia, the more students used it for academic purposes. In addition, the more students perceived Wikipedia as credible, the more they used it for academic purposes. The results indicate that formal authority still influences students' use of usergenerated content (UGC) in their formal domain, academic work. The results can be applicable to other UGC, which calls attention to educators' active intervention to appropriate academic use of UGC. Professors' guidelines for UGC would benefit students.||0||0|
|E-learning and the Quality of Knowledge in a Globalized World||Van De Bunt-Kokhuis S.||Distance and E-Learning in Transition: Learning Innovation, Technology and Social Challenges||English||2013||[No abstract available]||0||0|
|Temporal, cultural and thematic aspects of web credibility||Radoslaw Nielek
|Lecture Notes in Computer Science||English||2013||Is trust to web pages related to nation-level factors? Do trust levels change in time and how? What categories (topics) of pages tend to be evaluated as not trustworthy, and what categories of pages tend to be trustworthy? What could be the reasons of such evaluations? The goal of this paper is to answer these questions using large scale data of trustworthiness of web pages, two sets of websites, Wikipedia and an international survey.||0||0|
|The influence of source cues and topic familiarity on credibility evaluation||Teun Lucassen
|Computers in Human Behavior||English||2013||An important cue in the evaluation of the credibility of online information is the source from which the information comes. Earlier, it has been hypothesized that the source of information is less important when one is familiar with the topic at hand. However, no conclusive results were found to confirm this hypothesis. In this study, we re-examine the relationship between the source of information and topic familiarity. In an experiment with Wikipedia articles with and without the standard Wikipedia layout, we showed that, contrary to our expectations, familiar users have less trust in the information when they know it comes from Wikipedia than when they do not know its source. For unfamiliar users, no differences were found. Moreover, source cues only influenced trust when the credibility of the information itself was ambiguous. These results are interpreted in the 3S-model of information trust (Lucassen & Schraagen, 2011). © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.||0||0|
|Understanding trust formation in digital information sources: The case of Wikipedia||Rowley J.
|Journal of Information Science||English||2013||This article contributes to knowledge on how users establish the trustworthiness of digital information. An exploratory two-stage study was conducted with Master's and undergraduate students in information studies. In the first phase of the study respondents commented on the factors and processes associated with trust formation. Participants commented on authorship and references, quality of writing and editing, and verification via links to external reference sources. Findings from the second phase, based on a checklist, suggested that participants relied on a range of factors when assessing the trustworthiness of articles, including content factors such as authorship, currency and usefulness together with context factors such as references, expert recommendation and triangulation with their own knowledge. These findings are discussed in the light of previous related research and recommendations for further research are offered.||0||0|
|How people assess cooperatively authored information resources||Andrea Forte
|WikiSym 2012||English||2012||This work in progress highlights late-breaking results and foreshadows opportunities for designing interfaces that help support credibility assessment of cooperatively authored information resources.||0||0|
|Credibility Assessment Using Wikipedia for Messages on Social Network Services||Yu Suzuki
|Factual accuracy and Trust in Information: The Role of Expertise||Jan Maarten Schraagen Teun Lucassen||Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology||2011||In the past few decades, the task of judging the credibility of information has shifted from trained professionals (e.g., editors) to end users of information (e.g., casual Internet users). Lacking training in this task, it is highly relevant to research the behavior of these end users. In this article, we propose a new model of trust in information, in which trust judgments are dependent on three user characteristics: source experience, domain expertise, and information skills. Applying any of these three characteristics leads to different features of the information being used in trust judgments; namely source, semantic, and surface features (hence, the name 3S-model). An online experiment was performed to validate the 3S-model. In this experiment, Wikipedia articles of varying accuracy (semantic feature) were presented to Internet users. Trust judgments of domain experts on these articles were largely influenced by accuracy whereas trust judgments of novices remained mostly unchanged. Moreover, despite the influence of accuracy, the percentage of trusting participants, both experts and novices, was high in all conditions. Along with the rationales provided for such trust judgments, the outcome of the experiment largely supports the 3S-model, which can serve as a framework for future research on trust in information.||0||0|
|Janitors of knowledge: Constructing knowledge in the everyday life of Wikipedia editors||Sundin O.||Journal of Documentation||English||2011||Purpose: The aim of this paper is to explore how trustworthy knowledge claims in Wikipedia are constructed by focusing on the everyday practices of Wikipedia editors. The paper seeks to focus particularly on the role of references to external sources for the stabilisation of knowledge in Wikipedia. Design/methodology/approach: The study is inspired by online ethnography. It includes 11 Wikipedia editors, together with the sociotechnical resources in Wikipedia. The material was collected through interviews, online observations, web documents and discussions, and e-mail questions. The analysis was carried out from a perspective of science and technology studies (STS). Findings: Wikipedia can be regarded as a laboratory for knowledge construction in which the already published is being recycled. The references to external sources anchor the participatory encyclopaedia in the ecology of established media and attribute trust to the knowledge published. The policy on Verifiability is analysed as an obligatory passage point to which all actors have to adjust. Active Wikipedia editors can be seen as being akin to janitors of knowledge, as they are those who, through their hands-on activities, keep Wikipedia stable. Originality/value: The study develops an innovative understanding of the knowledge construction culture in one of the most popular sources for information on the internet. By highlighting the ways in which trust is established in Wikipedia, a more reflexive use of the participatory encyclopaedia is made possible. This is of value for information literacy training.||0||1|
|The nature of historical representation on Wikipedia: Dominant or alterative historiography?||Brendan Luyt||J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol.||English||2011||0||1|
|Young adults' credibility assessment of Wikipedia||Menchen-Trevino E.
|Information Communication and Society||English||2011||Wikipedia, a publicly edited online encyclopedia, is accessed by millions of users for answers to questions from trivial to high-stakes topics like health information. This new type of information resource may pose novel challenges for readers when it comes to evaluating the quality of content, yet very little is known about how Wikipedia readers understand and interpret the material they find on the site. Do people know that anyone can edit the site? And if so, what does this fact lead them to believe about the reliability of Wikipedia or particular articles therein? This study analyzes the information-seeking behavior of a diverse group of 210 college students from two Midwestern US universities as a first step towards addressing these questions. This paper found that a few students demonstrated in-depth knowledge of the Wikipedia editing process, while most had some understanding of how the site functions and a few lacked even such basic knowledge as the fact that anyone can edit the site. Although many study participants had been advised by their instructors not to cite Wikipedia articles in their schoolwork, students nonetheless often use it in their everyday lives. This paper lays the groundwork for further research to determine the extent of Wikipedia knowledge in the broader population and in additional diverse contexts.||0||0|
|A semantic wiki alerting environment incorporating credibility and reliability evaluation||Ulicny B.
|CEUR Workshop Proceedings||English||2010||In this paper, we describe a system that semantically annotates streams of reports about transnational criminal gangs in order to automatically produce models of the gangs' membership and activities in the form of a semantic wiki. A gang ontology and semantic inferencing are used to annotate the reports and supplement entity and relationship annotations based on the local document context. Reports in the datastream are annotated for reliability and credibility in the proof-of-concept system.||0||0|
|Trust in Wikipedia: How Users Trust Information from an Unknown Source||Jan Maarten Schraagen Teun Lucassen||4th Workshop on Information Credibility on the Web, Raleigh, North Carolina USA||2010||The use of Wikipedia as an information source is becoming increasingly popular. Several studies have shown that its information quality is high. Normally, when considering information trust, the source of information is an important factor. However, because of the open-source nature of Wikipedia articles, their sources remain mostly unknown. This means that other features need to be used to assess the trustworthiness of the articles. We describe article features - such as images and references - which lay Wikipedia readers use to estimate trustworthiness. The quality and the topics of the articles are manipulated in an experiment to reproduce the varying quality on Wikipedia and the familiarity of the readers with the topics. We show that the three most important features are textual features, references and images.||0||2|
|So you know you're getting the best possible information: A tool that increases wikipedia credibility||Peter Pirolli
|Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings||English||2009||An experiment was conducted to study how credibility judgments about Wikipedia are affected by providing users with an interactive visualization (WikiDashboard) of article and author editing history. Overall, users who self-reported higher use of Internet information and higher rates of Wikipedia usage tended to produce lower credibility judgments about Wikipedia articles and authors. However, use of WikiDashboard significantly increased article and author credibility judgments, with effect sizes larger than any other measured effects of background media usage and attitudes on Wikiepedia credibility. The results suggest that increased exposure to the editing/authoring histories of Wikipedia increases credibility judgments. Copyright 2009 ACM.||0||0|
|So you know you're getting the best possible information: a tool that increases Wikipedia credibility||Peter Pirolli
|Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems||English||2009||An experiment was conducted to study how credibility judgments about Wikipedia are affected by providing users with an interactive visualization (WikiDashboard) of article and author editing history. Overall, users who self-reported higher use of Internet information and higher rates of Wikipedia usage tended to produce lower credibility judgments about Wikipedia articles and authors. However, use of WikiDashboard significantly increased article and author credibility judgments, with effect sizes larger than any other measured effects of background media usage and attitudes on Wikiepedia credibility. The results suggest that increased exposure to the editing/authoring histories of Wikipedia increases credibility judgments.||0||0|
|An empirical exploration of Wikipedia's credibility||Thomas Chesney||First Monday||English||6 November 2006||Wikipedia is an free, online encyclopaedia; anyone can add content or edit existing content. The idea behind Wikipedia is that members of the general public can add their own personal knowledge, anonymously if they wish. Wikipedia then evolves over time into a comprehensive knowledge base on all things. Its popularity has never been questioned, although some have speculated about its authority. By its own admission, Wikipedia contains errors. A number of people have tested Wikipedia’s accuracy using destructive methods, i.e. deliberately inserting errors. This has been criticised by Wikipedia. This short study examines Wikipedia’s credibility by asking 258 research staff with a response rate of 21 percent, to read an article and assess its credibility, the credibility of its author and the credibility of Wikipedia as a whole. Staff were either given an article in their own expert domain or a random article. No difference was found between the two group in terms of their perceived credibility of Wikipedia or of the articles’ authors, but a difference was found in the credibility of the articles — the experts found Wikipedia’s articles to be more credible than the non–experts. This suggests that the accuracy of Wikipedia is high. However, the results should not be seen as support for Wikipedia as a totally reliable resource as, according to the experts, 13 percent of the articles contain mistakes.||0||0|