Judging the quality and credibility of information in Internet discussion forums

This exploratory study contributes to research on relevance assessment by specifying criteria that are used in the judgment of information quality and credibility in Internet discussion forums. To this end, 4,739 messages posted to 160 Finnish discussion threads were analyzed. Of the messages, 20.5% contained explicit judgments of the quality of information and credibility in other messages. In the judgments, the forum participants employed both positive criteria such as validity of information and negative criteria such as dishonesty in argumentation. In the evaluation of the quality of the message's information content, the most frequently used criteria pertained to the usefulness, correctness, and specificity of information. In the judgment of information credibility, the main criteria included the reputation, expertise, and honesty of the author of the message. Since Internet discussion forums tend to emphasize the role of disputational discourse questioning rather than accepting the views presented by others, mainly negative criteria were used in the judgments. The generality of our claims is limited because we chose forums that focused on sensitive and value-laden topics; future work could explore credibility and quality judgment in other forums and forumlike venues such as question and answer sites as well as exploring how quality and credibility judgments interact with other aspects of forum use. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

[1]  Soo Young Rieh,et al.  Credibility: A multidisciplinary framework , 2007, Annu. Rev. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[2]  Miriam J. Metzger,et al.  Perceptions of Internet Information Credibility , 2000 .

[3]  Judy Bateman.  Modeling the Importance of End-User Relevance Criteria. , 1999 .

[4]  Donald Owen Case,et al.  A model of the information seeking and decision making of online coin buyers , 2010, Inf. Res..

[5]  Carol L. Barry,et al.  Users' Criteria for Relevance Evaluation: A Cross-situational Comparison , 1998, Inf. Process. Manag..

[6]  Tefko Saracevic.  Relevance: A review of the literature and a framework for thinking on the notion in information science. Part III: Behavior and effects of relevance , 2007 .

[7]  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 .

[8]  Jacquelyn A. Burkell,et al.  Believe it or not: Factors influencing credibility on the Web , 2002, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[9]  Joemon M. Jose,et al.  How users assess Web pages for information seeking , 2005, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[10]  Lynn Rosenberg,et al.  Recent trends in use of herbal and other natural products. , 2005 .

[11]  Soo Young Rieh.  Credibility and Cognitive Authority of Information , 2010 .

[12]  Soo Young Rieh.  Judgement of information quality and cognitive authority in the Web , 2002 .

[13]  Helena Francke,et al.  In search of credibility: pupils' information practices in learning environments , 2009, Inf. Res..

[14]  Diane H. Sonnenwald,et al.  User perspectives on relevance criteria: A comparison among relevant, partially relevant, and not-relevant judgments , 2002, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[15]  Marilyn Bohl,et al.  Information processing , 1971 .

[16]  T. Saracevic.  Relevance: A Review of the Literature and a Framework for Thinking on the Notion in Information Science. Part II , 2006 .

[17]  N. Roberts,et al.  Value-added processes in information systems , 1986 .

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

[19]  Jarkko Kari,et al.  User-defined relevance criteria in web searching , 2006, J. Documentation.

[20]  Linda Schamber,et al.  User Criteria in Relevance Evaluation: Toward Development of a Measurement Scale. , 1996 .

[21]  Jane Greenberg,et al.  Relevance criteria identified by health information users during Web searches , 2006, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[22]  P. Kalbfleisch.  Credibility for the 21st Century: Integrating Perspectives on Source, Message, and Media Credibility in the Contemporary Media Environment , 2003 .

[23]  Matthew B. Miles,et al.  Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook , 1994 .

[24]  Miriam J. Metzger.  Making sense of credibility on the Web: Models for evaluating online information and recommendations for future research , 2007, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[25]  Carol L. Barry.  User-defined relevance criteria: an exploratory study , 1994 .

[26]  Robert S. Taylor,et al.  Value-Added Processes in Information Systems , 1987 .

[27]  Soo Young Rieh,et al.  Developing a unifying framework of credibility assessment: Construct, heuristics, and interaction in context , 2008, Inf. Process. Manag..

[28]  Liz Fekete,et al.  A Suitable Enemy: Racism, Migration and Islamophobia in Europe , 2009 .

[29]  S. Hirsh.  Children's Relevance Criteria and Information Seeking on Electronic Resources , 1999, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[30]  Kim Soojung,et al.  Questioners' credibility judgments of answers in a social question and answer site , 2010 .

[31]  Panayiotis Zaphiris,et al.  The role of message-sequences in the sustainability of an online support community for older people , 2010, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[32]  T. D. Wilson,et al.  On user studies and information needs , 2006, J. Documentation.

[33]  Charles L. Bernier,et al.  Second-hand knowledge. An inquiry into cognitive authority. Patrick Wilson. Greenwood Press, 1983 , 1984, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..