Expressing Scientific Insight

Credible sources of information …

I’ve been contemplating the meaning of that statement lately and, with the advent of the real-time Web, how it’s been changing.

According to the Stanford University Persuasive Technology Lab, credibility can be defined as believability [1]:

Credible people are believable people; credible information is believable information. In fact, some languages use the same word for these two English terms.

Two additional points help clarify the credibility construct. First, credibility is a perceived quality; it doesn’t reside in an object, a person, or a piece of information. Therefore, in discussing the credibility of a computer product, one is always discussing the perception of credibility.

Next, scholars agree that credibility perceptions result from evaluating multiple dimensions simultaneously. Although the literature varies on how many dimensions contribute to credibility evaluations, the vast majority of researchers identify two key components of credibility:

• trustworthiness
• expertise

What this means is that in evaluating credibility, a person makes an assessment of both trustworthiness and expertise to arrive at an overall credibility assessment.

Before the Web, newspapers were credible sources of information. In the early part of this decade as the Internet began to supplement traditional information sources, articles on websites such as CNN or WebMD were regarded as authoritative.

As blogs, wikis and other Web 2.0 technologies that made it easier for people to publish online became ubiquitous, individual sources of self-published credible information began to appear in the form of blogs and wikis.

Together with social media, blogs and wikis make up the near-time or real-time Web. Many are frequently focused on a particular topic; the author is often a professional in the topic under discussion.

The real-time Web

The real-time Web is a set of technologies that enable users to receive information as soon as it is published by the author. The real-time Web, or, in the case of blogs, wikis and RSS, the near-real time Web, is fundamentally different from the traditional Web in that information becomes dated in a short period of time.

I drafted a short paragraph about the real-time Web and credibility when Highlight HEALTH hosted MedLib’s Round blog carnival three weeks ago. The theme of the edition was Finding credible health information online and my intention was to address the potential discordance that people might perceive when reading about blogs as credible sources of information:

Characteristics of new media

I get a lot of my news today from new media. New media actually has several qualities that can make it more credible than traditional news sources: (1) independence from a larger organization with its own agenda and (2) expertise. Indeed, there are people twittering, sharing on FriendFeed or Facebook, or writing blog posts that have first-hand knowledge and experience in a specific topic: science, medicine, business, marketing, etc.

There are several questions to ask when evaluating the credibility of online sources of information and I content that each question can be addressed within the context of the four characteristics I listed above.

Recent

New media is recent, if not immediate. Information can change quickly — credible sources of information are up-to-date and should display the date the information is posted and/or updated.

Relevant

New media is relevant. Indeed, many new media sources are focused on a specific topic. Often, the author or authors are professionals with expertise on the topic they write about. Readers can relate to what’s being discussed. An “About” page or bio typically explains who the author(s) are and lists their credentials.

Reachable

New media is reachable. Typically, new media websites include a method to contact the writer, either directly or indirectly. From contact forms to email to social media, there’s a way to get in touch.

Reliable

New media is reliable. New media articles include a list of references or links directly to their sources of information, allowing readers to verify facts or opinions presented.

Credibility and the power of branding

There’s one principle characteristic that distinguishes new media from traditional sources of information: the editor. Indeed, many people don’t trust new media for credible information because they don’t have a stringent quality-control process. In many cases, however, when the author has first-hand knowledge on the issues they write about (and unlike a traditional journalist who covers a range of topics), an editor isn’t necessary. Indeed, they’ve already met one of the components people evaluate when assessing credibility: expertise.

And what about trust? How do you establish trust? In today’s information-overloaded environment where everyone is competing for your attention, I think that’s easy to answer: branding. Now I’m not talking about using marketing or advertising to build a brand, I’m talking about demonstrating value, showing people that you can repeatedly provide reliable information that is relevant to their interests.

I think that’s the power of branding in new media … its not a name or a logo or a slogan, it’s the relationship that’s built with other people.

References

1. Fogg et al. What Makes Web Sites Credible? A Report on a Large Quantitative Study. Presented at: ACM CHI 2001 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems; 2001 Mar 31-Apr 5; Seattle, WA.