Evaluating Internet resources: Identity, affiliation, and cognitive authority in a networked world

Abstract

Many people fail to properly evaluate Internet information. This is often due to a lack of understanding of the issues surrounding evaluation and authority, and, more specifically, a lack of understanding of the structure and modi operandi of the Internet and the Domain Name System. The fact that evaluation is not being properly performed on Internet information means both that questionable information is being used recklessly, without adequately assessing its authority, and good information is being disregarded, because trust in the information is lacking. Both scenarios may be resolved by ascribing proper amounts of cognitive authority to Internet information. Traditional measures of authority present in a print environment are lacking on the Internet, and, even when occasionally present, are of questionable veracity. A formal model and evaluative criteria are herein suggested and explained to provide a means for accurately ascribing cognitive authority in a networked environment; the model is unique in its representation of overt and covert affiliations as a mechanism for ascribing proper authority to Internet information. Cognitive Authority and the InternetMany authors have stated that the evaluation of Internet information is similar to the evaluation of print materials, and that many of the same evaluative criteria apply in both media (

Correlates of Consumer Trust in Online Health Information: Findings From the Health Information National Trends Survey

“…Although few published studies have examined the contribution of information features to online health information credibility, research has suggested that regardless of Internet experience and issue involvement, message quality predicts Web site credibility (Hong, 2006) and is the most important factor of consumer trust in online health information in the long term (Zahedi & Song, 2008). For example, research shows the importance of information relevance, accuracy, presentation, and format in consumer perception of online information credibility (Fritch & Cromwell, 2001;Iding, Crosby, Auernheimer, & Klemm, 2009). Given both the predictive role of information characteristics in trust in online health information and limited research in this area, I tested the following hypotheses:…”

Trust and epistemic communities in biodiversity data sharing

“…Of particular relevance to this paper is credibility of Web resources, which addresses evaluative criteria for web sources, and the extent to which people use questionable information from the Web [1,7,8,28,35,35] -that is, epistemological trust and networked information. Some of this work is descriptive; other is normative.…”

“…The literature on assessment of web-based resources indicates that people's evaluation of information on the Internet relies heavily on their evaluation of the source [1,7,8,28,35]. Lynch [28] reports a new form of deception in the networked world: deceiving search engines to increase the ranking of a document or web site among retrieved results.…”

“…A growing literature investigates the assessment of Web-based resources (e.g., [1,4,7,8,35]. A new book [2] presents an array of socially-informed investigations of digital library use.…”

“Not Some Trumped Up Beef”: Assessing Credibility of Online Restaurant Reviews

“…While this type of information can help people judge similarity between themselves and the eWOM source, which can impact influence [4], people are not likely to include such detailed information in their profiles due to privacy concerns [29]. Prior work also shows that identity disclosures as simple as whether or not people use their real names can impact others' evaluation of online information such as news articles [13]. We therefore consider a simp ler and more practical identity manipulat ion, focusing just on username: In the absence of detailed source information, people often rely on other cognitive heuristics to assess the credibility of online information, such as reputation and e ndorsement from others [28], [37].…”