Redefining content authenticity in a connected world

Two main attributes are taken into consideration when evaluating the authenticity of information: quality and credibility (1). However, with the availability of vast quantities of user-generated content in multiple formats, these attributes are becoming harder to easily validate. Furthermore, as Web 2.0 encourages a participatory and collaborative environment of information generation, seeking and use, consideration needs to be given to how authenticity is depicted in relation to the traditional method of peer-review (2).

Wikipedia, created through crowdsourcing of third party resources (3), is a primary source for many information seekers (4, 5). While Wikipedia has policies and procedures relating to verifiability of sources and presentation of a neutral point of view (6), there is debate about the quality of Wikipedia content, which ranges from something comparable to an encyclopedia entry, to a veritable mishmash of ideas which can also lack citations (7). Additionally, as Wikipedia allows author anonymity, it is difficult for information seekers to verify the credibility of an entry (8, 9).

Increasingly there is a shift to break down barriers between the traditional arbitrators of quality content (academia, publishers, libraries) and the wider community (10), which in turn “calls into question standard notions of what constitutes authority, [hence authenticity], by emphasizing the benefits of knowledge sharing via social networks” (11).

User generated content from websites, wikis, blogs, micro blogs, multimedia sources (presentations, podcasts and vodcasts) and feedback elements in information sources, such as comments and tags, is being used to inform information seekers for a variety of purposes, including health decision making to educational and research purposes. For example, a personal experience added to a photograph can inform academic research (12), or tweets about scholarly issues may lead to concepts that can be incorporated into the research process (13).

However, information sources located in these participatory online sites tend to be more opinion based (14), therefore the information seeker needs to critically review this dynamic content in order to distinguish between fact and opinion “before incorporating these ideas into his or her own knowledge” (15). Additionally, information seekers must be prepared to create an information context when evaluating resources which integrates multiple formats (16); that is, the information seeker must not only evaluate an online site for credibility, but each entry within that site (17) and the content within the entry.

Two key messages:

• The traditional peer-review quality control model of authenticity needs to be reconsidered in light of the participatory culture of Web 2.0.
• Critical thinking skills and information literacy need to be combined with other literacy skills (digital, media, visual and technology) in order to encompass the varied user generated content and contexts of Web 2.0.

__________________________________

Endnotes

1. O’Grady et al., 2009, para. Content.
2. Wittenberg, 2007, para. 5.
3. A pillar of Wikipedea is “No original thought”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Original_research
4. Garfinkel, 2009, p. 84, paras. 1-2.
5. Lorenzo, 2007, p. 8, paras. 4-6.
6. See Wikipedia: Verifiablity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability Neutral Point of View http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
7. Lorenzo, 2007, p. 8, paras. 8-9.
8. Wittenberg, 2007, para. 7.
9. CZ:Why Citizendium? Real names are better (last modified 2011, March 12). Retrieved from http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Why_Citizendium%3F
10. Mackey & Jacobson, 2011, p. 73, para. 1.
11. Ipri, 2010, p. 533, para. 5.
12. Ipri, 2010, p. 533, para. 7.
13. Mackey & Jacobson, 2011, p. 73, para. 2.
14. Mackey & Jacobson, 2011, p. 73, para. 3.
15. Mackey & Jacobson, 2011, p. 74, para. 1.
16. Mackey & Jacobson, 2011, p. 69, para 1, p. 70, para. 3f.
17. O’Grady et al., 2009, para. Content.

References

O’Grady, L., Witterman, H., Bender, J. L., Urowitz, S., Wijer, D., & Jadad, A. R. (2009). Measuring the impact of a moving target: towards a dynamic framework for evaluating collaborative adaptive interactive technologies. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 11(2), e20. doi: 10.2196/jmir.1058

Garfinkel, S. (2008). Wikipedia and the meaning of truth. Technology Review, 111(6), 84-86. Retrieved from Ebsco MasterFILE Premier database.

Ipri, T. (2010). Introducing transliteracy. What does it mean to academic libraries? College & Research Libraries News, 71(10), 532-533, 567. Retrieved from http://crln.acrl.org/content/71/10/532.full

Lorenzo, G. (2007). Catalysts for change: Information fluency, Web 2.0, Library 2.0, and the new education culture. Clarence Center, NY: Lorenzo Associates. Retrieved from http://www.edpath.com/images/IFReport2.pdf

Mackey, T.P. & Jacobson, T.E. (2011). Reframing information literacy as metaliteracy. College & Research Libraries,72(1), 62-78. Retrieved from http://crl.acrl.org/content/72/1/62.full.pdf+html

Wittenberg, K. (2007). Credibility of content and the future of research, learning, and publishing in the digital environment. Journal of Electronic Publishing, 10(1). doi:10.3998/3336451.0010.101

Related blog post

Hayward-Wright, N. (2011, March 19) Preservation of online user generated content [blog post] Available from: http://on-socialnetworking.blogspot.com/2011/03/preservation-of-online-user-generated.html