Credibility: Week 4 – Question 3

Q3) The findings of Fogg’s studies conducted in 1999 and 2002 (see page 154 of this week’s reading)  indicated that people’s perception of Web credibility has changed. For example, people’s  perception on non‐profit organisation websites has changed since 1999. This is because, nowadays,  setting up a nonprofit website is easy, and therefore the image of non‐profit websites has lost its  value. In dot points, in your own words, list anticipated issues that may affect the users’ perceived  Web credibility in future (200 words).

  • Web page is infrequently updated
  • The page associates with another page which is not credible
  • Advertising overtakes the key information the page should be displaying.
  • The page is built to be persuasive for the purposes of making profit
  • Broken links are supplied to within the website
  • Spelling or grammatical errors displayed
  • Lack of company logo present on the site
  • Lack of clarity as to which company or organization the page is associated with
  • Unprofessional or lacking design of the website
  • Difficult to find a physical address or contact details that match the sites company.
  • Unclear formation of the page making it hard to navigate through the pages within the web site.
  • Random pop ups that are linked to un credible sources, also commonly adverts.
  • Inconsistency in website availability
  • Overuse of advertising that detracts from the pages information
  • Membership or joining fee required to gain access
  • Users must sign up to get access to the web page
  • The information displayed on the site is unexpected
  • The page domain name alters when compared to the company’s
  • Limited information and navigation within the site.
  • The adverts displayed alter from the content being viewed
  • Displays articles without displaying authors or credentials
Advertisements

Credibility: Week 4 – Question 2

Q2) In the learning portfolio, Wikipedia is not accepted as a credible resource for academic  assignments. What do you think is the reason Wikipedia is not accepted (200 – 250 words)

Credibility is viewed as the judgments a user applies when considering the quality of a work (Epping & Wilder, 2011). Aspects such as expertise, trust, and reliability influence credibility. Due to Wikipedia being an open source website the credibility of the information it displays is often altered and thus it is not appropriate for use in academic assignments. Being an open source site means the information on the Wikipedia page can be changed by anyone and thus can be unreliable and inconsistence. The credibility of Wikipedia as an academic source is lessened or to difficult to establish due to the constantly changing nature of the page. Fogg (2003) states credibility is increased when feelings of trust and expertise are strong. However it is very difficult to establish the level expertise of writer of the information and without the ability to inspect supporting affiliations the credibility of any material sourced through Wikipedia is effected (Stanford Persuasive Technology Lab, 2004). Thus, due to the ever-changing nature of Wikipedia, the lack of reliability, dependability and clarification of expertise Wikipedia is not considered a reliable academic source.

 

Epping, L. L., & Wilder, W. M. (2011). Factors impacting the credibility of website disclosures. Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting, 9(1), 27-46. doi:10.1108/19852511111139787

Fogg, B. J. (2003). Credibility and the World Wide Web. In Persuasive Technology: Using Computers  to Change What We Think and Do (pp. 122‐125). Amsterdam: Morgan Kaufmann  Publishers

Stanford Persuasive Technology Lab. (2004) Stanford web credibility research. Retrieved from http://credibility.stanford.edu/guidelines/index.html