Learning Portfolio 4, Item 2

Presumed web credibility: “Based on general assumptions in the user’s mind”

By searching through the Google Scholar database, the results returned also include citations in other works. This specific article is an example of presumed web credibility due to the fact that it has been cited 8,434 times.

Reputed web credibility: “Based on third-party endorsements, reports or referrals”

Mitsubishi Motors Australia features this on the home page of their website, talking up their Mirage ES model. By including the 5 star ANCAP safety rating and the two awards it has won, their audience may be more likely to purchase this car.

Surface web credibility: “Based on simple inspection, first impressions”
Alienware gaming PCs are renowned among gaming and computing enthusiasts for their capabilities and performance. To anyone that has basic knowledge of computers, reading on the specs of these computers may provide credibility that Alienware mean business.

Earned web credibility: “Based on firsthand experience that extends over time”
Government sites are websites that are expected to post accurate and relevant information and are conveyed as credible even before a user visits the site. Information and news may be subjective to highlight positivity, but nevertheless, they are perceived as credible by its nation and by other nations simply due to its authority.


Learning Portfolio 4, Item 1, Q3

Issues that may affect perceived web credibility in the future:

  • Discontinuation of website and/or organisation
  • Shift in employment, such as in senior/managerial roles, altering values and beliefs
  • New authors and editors on the site
  • Update/change in page layout/website design
  • New generation of people (such as every two or three decades)
  • Involuntary trends set and influenced by the people
  • Increase/decrease in demand regarding design
  • Funding and support from the government
  • Advancements in technology
  • Advancements on the world wide web
  • Accessibility to the site
  • Page ranking from search engines and databases, placement and relativity  in the search results
  • Accessibility to areas of, and pages on, the site
  • Contact details, separate pages regarding history and expertise of the authors
  • History of the site, how long it has existed
  • Relevance and credibility of its citations and sources

Learning Portfolio 4, Item 1, Q2

Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia with millions of pages on an array of topics, contributed and edited by the public. Although it appears scholarly and does provide numerous articles written and edited by reputable authors, there are also many articles that are not, as well as the fact that these articles are easily edited.

This factor is what pushes it out of the realms of trustworthiness and expertise within credibility. Although Wikipedia is a good starting place for research, its information is not highly and oftenly reviewed and moderated by experts (“What’s Wrong with Wikipedia?”, n.d.).

The fact that Wikipedia’s articles are so easily edited has become a highlight of its history, with multiple stories emerging of users adding false information without it being picked up for months, sometimes years later.

Wikipedia is best used to grasp ideas and concepts, but not facts. Students are best off using the sources cited and measuring their individual credibility, rather than Wikipedia itself.

Reference List
What’s Wrong with Wikipedia? (n.d.). Retrieved from

Learning Portfolio 4, Item 1, Q1

B. J. Fogg, in his chapter ‘Credibility and the World Wide Web’, discusses the perceptions of credibility in online resources as a blend of trustworthiness and expertise, and how the two either go hand in hand or don’t work together at all.

In a study conducted by Stanford Web Credibility Studies of over 6000 people, findings concluded that credibility suffers in four specific ways.

The first way is a blurred line between ads and page content. The second being links from one credible page to a page that lacks credibility. Third, advertisements and pop-up windows. The final way is a mismatch between domain name and company name.

Julia Schwarz and Meredith Ringel Morris state that almost everyone is at fault for accessing and trusting non-credible websites, ranging from school-age children to educated adults (2011).

Online reading has impacted credibility in a sense that it has changed the definition of literacy to include online skills, such as measuring credibility (Leu & Zawilinski, 2007).

Credibility can be linked to two aspects, trustworthiness and expertise. To a student, these are two very important factors, and can be the difference between marks. When making an argument, it is important that the information is backed up and supported by research, otherwise the argument is nullified by the fact that there is no evidence. The source of this information must be reputable, through knowledge and experience in the field.

Reference List
Fogg, B. J., (2003). Credibility and the World Wide Web. Persuasive Technology: Using Computers to Change What We
          Think and Do (pp. 122-125). Amsterdam: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
Fogg, B. J., (2003). Credibility and the World Wide Web. Persuasive Technology: Using Computers to Change What We
          Think and Do (pp. 147-181). Amsterdam: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
Schwarz, J., Morris, M. R., (2011). Augmenting web pages and search results to support credibility assessment. Retrieved
Leu, D. J., Zawilinski, L., (2007). The new literacies of online reading comprehension. New England Reading Association
          Journal, 43(1), 1-7