Learning Portfolio 4 – Q2 Examples

Presumed Credibility
We believe that the information is credible because of the assumptions we hold

Example: http://www.wwf.org.au/

Screen shot 2013-05-17 at 3.49.59 PM

The WWF Website (Formally known as World Wildlife Fund, now known as World Wide Fund for Nature) is a website that we know is credible and that we can trust. It is an internationally recognised name and is evident across nearly all countries over the world. Although WWF is a not-for-profit organisation, it’s website is extremely well laid out and is updated on a regular basis. Because it is an organisation and it’s domain name has an “org” we know that they are an organisation and that they are credible by looking just at their home page.

Reputed Credibility
We believe that the information is credible because we have been referred to visit the website by a third party

Example: http://www.vincent.wa.gov.au/Home

Screen shot 2013-05-17 at 4.14.01 PM

I was referred to the City of Vincent website by our landlord at our Office in Perth to find out when our recycling bin days were. Because the landlord referred me to this website, I knew that it would have to be credible, and by looking at the domain that it is a “gov” website, you would automatically assume it is credible if it has some government nature to it.

Surface Credibility
We believe the information is credible as soon as we open the web page

Example: http://www.ikea.com/aa/en/

Screen shot 2013-05-17 at 4.19.05 PM

IKEA is an organisation that everyone recognises and trusts. Their website is clean, simple and very professional. It is easy to navigate around, it has a search option on each page, the information is effectively chunked amongst the website allowing the website to flow cohesively and offer a professional and slick vibe about it. Because IKEA is a known and trusted branded, and their website is constantly monitored and updated, it allows us to trust that the information provided is credible.

Earned Credibility
We believe the information is credible because we have visited the site before

Example: http://www.ecu.edu.au/

Screen shot 2013-05-17 at 4.28.47 PM

The ECU website is a good example of earned credibility. Because as an ECU Student, you visit the ECU website quite frequently you have become accustom to the site navigation and you are familiar with the site content and know that what you search for and find on the site will be credible.

Learning Portfolio 4 – Q1 Summary Part 3

  • Grammatical errors – If there are continued spelling errors on the website, it will appear lazy and unprofessional
  • Website pop-up ads – Lack of firewall security and the idea that a company is trying to persuade you to “buy into” something, rather than just providing information free of charge
  • Websites that are not regularly updated – When websites are not regularly updated, it presents the idea that the owner of the website has no desire to update the website therefore placing no importance in the website itself
  • Orphan links (Error 404) – when there are missing/broken links on websites, it becomes quite evident that nobody has taken the time to fix these, and therefore credibility and professionalism in the website has been lost
  • Websites without personalised domain names – When a website owner has not taken the time or forked out the money for a domain name subscription, the website loses credibility immediately. If you are serious about promoting your services, you should take the time and invest in the idea of having a personalised domain name to make it appear more professional
  • Lack of “chunking” on the website – The lack of chunking of information on a website makes the website appear messy, in-cohesive and unprofessional

Learning Portfolio 4 – Q1 Summary Part 2

Wikipedia is not a reliable source as the content of any pages on Wikipedia can be updated and edited by anyone as they see fit. Someone without the appropriate expertise (Fogg, 2003) can easily go into any page on Wikipedia and replace the content with whatever they like.

Some of the information that is listed on Wikipedia may indeed be very credible, but as people with certain expertise do not review entries on the site (Harvard Guide to Using Sources, n.d.), it is hard for people to really know if what they are reading is authentic.

Another reason as to why Wikipedia cannot be used as a reputable source is because you dont actually have any knowledge on who wrote the article itself (Moran, 2011). You dont have to provide your name when you are submitting an article on Wikipedia, therefore you wont know who wrote what.

The fact that Wikipedia’s lack of credibility has been reported on numerous occasions is enough to give you warning signs that it cannot be trusted as a reliable source. Wikipedia is notorious for posting fake death reports of numerous celebrities when in fact they are very much alive. (Wikipedia is Wrong, n.d.)

Because Wikipedia has been labelled as a website that is not credible or trustworthy on more than one occasion, they will lose credibility instantly (Fogg, 2003).

And the main reason why Wikipedia cannot be used as a credible or reliable sources – because Wikipedia tells us that itself – “We do not expect you to trust us” (Wikipedia, 2013)

References

Fogg, B. J. (2003). Credibility and the World Wide Web. Amsterdam: Morgan Kaufman Publishers.

Harvard Guide to Using Sources. (n.d.). What’s Wrong with Wikipedia? Retrieved May 17, 2013, from Harvard Guide to Using Sources: http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k70847&pageid=icb.page346376

Moran, M. E. (2011, October 27). The Top 10 Reasons Students Cannot Cite or Rely On Wikipedia. Retrieved May 17, 2013, from Finding Dulcinea: http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/education/2010/march/The-Top-10-Reasons-Students-Cannot-Cite-or-Rely-on-Wikipedia.html

Wikipedia is Wrong. (n.d.). Wikipedia is Wrong. Retrieved May 17, 2013, from Wikipedia is Wrong: http://www.wikipedia-is-wrong.com/

Wikipedia. (2013, May 7). Wikipedia. Retrieved May 17, 2013, from Ten things you may not know about Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ten_things_you_may_not_know_about_Wikipedia

Learning Portfolio 4 – Q1 Summary Part 1

In this weeks article, we learnt the importance of evaluating website credibility as both students and individuals in our studies as well as our everyday lives/careers.

Anyone can create a website on the world wide web compiled with information that they choose regardless of whether they hold any education or knowledge in that field. (Evaluating Web Resources , 2013)

It is expected that one would be able to trust the credibility of a source if it has been written by someone with “expertise” (Fogg, 2003), such as a Doctor or a Professor or someone of a certain stature, pertaining that the resource is is in their chosen field of work. We can trust that the information that they have provided is credible as they have knowledge in the subject/field.

According to a study undertake by UCLA, recorded on Trent Moss’s website (founder of webcredible a consultancy focusing on website usability and accessibility), an astonishing “…52.8% of web users believe online information to be credible”. It shows that due to the number of false websites that are live on the internet, it is hard for people to be able to identify if they are authentic or not.

As students, it is extremely vital that we provide credible references and sources to back up our argument otherwise “Without credibility, sites are not likely to persuade users to change their attitudes or behaviors…”. If we cannot provide reputable resources to support our case, our argument will be groundless.

References

Evaluating Web Resources . (2013, January 14). Retrieved May 17, 2013, from Berry College Memorial Library: http://libguides.berry.edu/evaluatingweb

Fogg, B. J. (2003). Credibility and the World Wide Web. Amsterdam: Morgan Kaufman Publishers.

Moss, T. (2013, January 1). Web credibility: The basics. Retrieved May 17, 2013, from Webcredible: http://www.webcredible.co.uk/user-friendly-resources/web-credibility/basics.shtml