Information quality assessment of community generated content: A user study of Wikipedia

Abstract

This study examines the ways in which information consumers evaluate the quality of content in a collaborative-writing environment, in this case Wikipedia. Sixty-four users were asked to assess the quality of five articles from the Hebrew Wikipedia, to indicate the highest-and lowest-quality article of the five and explain their choices. Participants viewed both the article page, and the article's history page, so that their decision was based both on the article's current content and on its development. The analysis shows that the attributes that most frequently assisted the users in deciding about the quality of the items were not unique to Wikipedia: attributes such as amount of information, satisfaction with content and external links were mentioned frequently, as with other information quality studies on the web. The findings also support the claim that quality is a subjective concept which depends on the user's unique point of view. Attributes such as number of edits and number of unique editors received two contradictory meanings -both few edits/editors and many edits/editors were mentioned as attributes of high-quality articles.

A study of factors that contribute to online review helpfulness

“…In terms of quantitative factors, the current research uses word count as a predictor of review helpfulness. Additionally, the quality of information is extremely crucial in online reviews, since high quality information provides reliable, current and concise information (Arazy & Kopak, 2011;Yaari, Baruchson-Arbib, & Bar-Ilan, 2011). In the online review context, quality of information relates to the qualifications and credibility of reviewers (Li & Zhan, 2011;Sotiriadis & van Zyl, 2013).…”

“…These could refer to the content, writing style, meaning, quality, source, and any other non-quantity aspects of information. Examples of qualitative factors include relevance, accuracy, reliability, timeliness, source credibility, readability, conciseness, sidedness, and others (Alkhattabi, Neagu, & Cullen, 2011;Arazy & Kopak, 2011;Leung, 2001;Wang & Strong, 1996;Yaari et al, 2011).…”

“…''Quality'' is a construct that is subjective and hard to define. High-quality information might be characterized as accurate, reliable, current, concise, fair, easy to understand, organized, and many other things (Alkhattabi et al, 2011;Arazy & Kopak, 2011;Yaari et al, 2011). Since the purpose of information in general is to inform, the maxim of quality is defined as ''appropriately informative'' (Grice, 1967).…”

Why Students Share Misinformation on Social Media: Motivation, Gender, and Study-level Differences

“…Even in situations where students do conduct a credibility assessment, their evaluative strategies are faulty at times. For example, students sometimes use ineffective peripheral cues (e.g., a site's design or the nicknames of a Wikipedia article's editors) to evaluate the credibility of related social media information Lim & Simon, 2011;Yaari, Baruchson-Arbib, & Bar-Ilan, 2011).…”

Trust in online information

“…The influence of many aspects, such as user characteristics (Metzger, 2007;Hilligoss & Rieh, 2008), information features (Yaari, Baruchson-Arbib, & Bar-Ilan, 2011;Lucassen & Schraagen, 2010), or other situational factors (Fogg, 2003;Kelton, Fleischmann, & Wallace, 2008) have been shown.…”