Why Some Wikis are More Credible than Others: Structural Attributes of Collaborative Websites as Credibility Cues

Recent technological advancements have helped giving rise to a variety of websites offering user-generated content through collaborative efforts. This study used focus groups to identify what features might influence credibility assessment of such websites. The findings revealed that editing features, discussion board and edit history were the collaborative features affecting credibility judgment of collaborative websites. In addition, the presence of references was seen as an important factor which helps to enhance website’s credibility. This study also examined how level of involvement may affect credibility judgment. The focus groups showed that the more involved participants with the message topic identified the importance of message characteristic when assessing credibility of websites. There were some perceived advantages of collaborative features identified, such as unbiased and more up-to-date information. In contrast, there were also some concerns about possible vandalism and the inaccuracy of information. The findings suggest that people may be embracing the idea of collaborative websites; however there is need to conduct more research to find out what could be done to reduce their concerns of vandalism and inaccuracy of information.

[1]  Thomas Chesney,et al.  An empirical examination of Wikipedia's credibility , 2006, First Monday.

[2]  Hong Iris Xie Shifts of interactive intentions and information-seeking strategies in interactive information retrieval , 2000 .

[3]  B. J. Fogg,et al.  What makes Web sites credible?: a report on a large quantitative study , 2001, CHI.

[4]  Keith W. Miller,et al.  Anonymity, pseudonymity, or inescapable identity on the net (abstract) , 1998, SIGCAS Comput. Soc..

[5]  Miriam J. Metzger,et al.  Digital Media and Youth: Unparalleled Opportunity and Unprecedented Responsibility , 2008 .

[6]  Gary E. Gorman A tale of information ethics and encyclopædias; or, is Wikipedia just another internet scam? , 2007, Online Inf. Rev..

[7]  J. Giles Internet encyclopaedias go head to head , 2005, Nature.

[8]  Miriam J. Metzger,et al.  behaviors on the perceived credibility of web-based information The role of site features, user attributes, and information verification , 2007 .

[9]  S. Chaiken The heuristic model of persuasion. , 1987 .

[10]  Christian Köhler,et al.  How do consumers search for and appraise health information on the world wide web? Qualitative study using focus groups, usability tests, and in-depth interviews , 2002, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[11]  James E. Katz,et al.  Assessments of Quality of Health Care Information and Referrals to Physicians: A Nationwide Survey , 2001 .

[12]  Ronald E. Rice,et al.  The internet and health care : theory, research, and practice , 2006 .

[13]  Barbara Warnick,et al.  Online Ethos , 2004 .

[14]  Phoebe Ayers Researching wikipedia - current approaches and new directions , 2006, ASIST.

[15]  Traci Hong,et al.  The influence of structural and message features on Web site credibility , 2006, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[16]  Alice H. Eagly,et al.  Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. , 1989 .

[17]  Andreas Pfitzmann,et al.  Anonymity, Unobservability, and Pseudonymity - A Proposal for Terminology , 2000, Workshop on Design Issues in Anonymity and Unobservability.

[18]  Ronald E. Rice,et al.  The internet and health communication : experience and expectations , 2001 .

[19]  Miriam J. Metzger,et al.  Digital Media, Youth, and Credibility , 2007 .

[20]  S. Chaiken Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. , 1980 .

[21]  S. Chaiken,et al.  Communication modality as a determinant of persuasion: The role of communicator salience. , 1983 .

[22]  Philip J. Calvert,et al.  Scholarly misconduct and misinformation on the World Wide Web , 2001, Electron. Libr..

[23]  Miriam J. Metzger,et al.  College student Web use, perceptions of information credibility, and verification behavior , 2003, Comput. Educ..

[24]  Timme Bisgaard Munk Why wikipedia: Self-efficacy and self-esteem in a knowledge-political battle for an egalitarian epistemology , 2010 .

[25]  Soo Young Rieh,et al.  College Students' Credibility Judgments in the Information-Seeking Process , 2008 .

[26]  Anthony M. Townsend,et al.  Legally speaking: libel and slander on the Internet , 2000, CACM.

[27]  Marios Poulos,et al.  Evaluating authoritative sources using social networks: an insight from Wikipedia , 2006, Online Inf. Rev..

[28]  Deborah L. McGuinness,et al.  Investigations into Trust for Collaborative Information Repositories: A Wikipedia Case Study , 2006, MTW.