102,870
edits
Changes
Created page with 'File:lighterstill.jpgright|frame *[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16th_century 1594] ==Definitions== *1: the quality o...'
[[File:lighterstill.jpg]][[File:Phrases-that-undermine-your-credibility.jpg|right|frame]]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16th_century 1594]
==Definitions==
*1: the [[quality]] or [[power]] of [[inspiring]] [[belief]] <an account lacking in credibility>
*2: [[capacity]] for belief <strains her [[reader]]'s credibility — Times Literary Supplement>
==Description==
'''Credibility''' refers to the [[objective]] and [[subjective]] components of the believability of a [[source]] or message.
Traditionally, [[modern]] credibility has two key components: [[trustworthiness]] and [[expertise]], which both have objective and subjective components. [[Trustworthiness]] is based more on subjective factors, but can include objective [[measurements]] such as established reliability. [[Expertise]] can be similarly subjectively [[perceived]], but also includes relatively objective characteristics of the source or [[message]] (e.g., credentials, certification or [[information]] [[quality]]). Secondary components of credibility include source dynamism ([[charisma]]) and physical [[attractiveness]].
Credibility online has become an important [[topic]] since the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1990's mid-1990s]. This is because [[the web]] has increasingly become an [[information]] resource. The Credibility and Digital Media Project @ [http://www.credibility.ucsb.edu/ UCSB] highlights recent and ongoing [[work]] in this area, including recent [[consideration]] of digital [[media]], youth, and credibility. In addition, the [http://captology.stanford.edu/ Persuasive Technology Lab] at Stanford University has studied [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_Web_Credibility_Project web credibility] and proposed the principal components of online credibility and a general [[theory]] called [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credibility#cite_note-4 Prominence-Interpretation Theory].[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credibility]
''Scientific credibility'' has been defined as the extent to which [[science]] in general is recognized as a source of reliable [[information]] about the world. The term has also been applied more narrowly, as an [[assessment]] of the credibility of the work of an individual scientist or a field of [[research]]. Here, the phrase refers to how closely the work in question adheres to scientific [[principles]], such as the [[scientific method]]. The method most commonly used to assess the [[quality]] of science is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review peer review] and then publication as part of the scientific literature. Other approaches include the [[collaborative]] assessment of a [[topic]] by a group of [[experts]], this process can produce reviews such as those published by the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochrane_Collaboration Cochrane Collaboration], or the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change].
The general [[public]] can give a great deal of weight to [[perceptions]] of scientific [[authority]] in their [[decisions]] on controversial issues that involve scientific research, such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biotechnology biotechnology]. However, both the credibility and authority of science is questioned by groups with non-mainstream views, such as some advocates of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_medicine alternative medicine], or those who dispute the scientific [[consensus]] on a topic, such as [[AIDS]] denialists.
[[Category: The Sciences]]
[[Category: General Reference]]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16th_century 1594]
==Definitions==
*1: the [[quality]] or [[power]] of [[inspiring]] [[belief]] <an account lacking in credibility>
*2: [[capacity]] for belief <strains her [[reader]]'s credibility — Times Literary Supplement>
==Description==
'''Credibility''' refers to the [[objective]] and [[subjective]] components of the believability of a [[source]] or message.
Traditionally, [[modern]] credibility has two key components: [[trustworthiness]] and [[expertise]], which both have objective and subjective components. [[Trustworthiness]] is based more on subjective factors, but can include objective [[measurements]] such as established reliability. [[Expertise]] can be similarly subjectively [[perceived]], but also includes relatively objective characteristics of the source or [[message]] (e.g., credentials, certification or [[information]] [[quality]]). Secondary components of credibility include source dynamism ([[charisma]]) and physical [[attractiveness]].
Credibility online has become an important [[topic]] since the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1990's mid-1990s]. This is because [[the web]] has increasingly become an [[information]] resource. The Credibility and Digital Media Project @ [http://www.credibility.ucsb.edu/ UCSB] highlights recent and ongoing [[work]] in this area, including recent [[consideration]] of digital [[media]], youth, and credibility. In addition, the [http://captology.stanford.edu/ Persuasive Technology Lab] at Stanford University has studied [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_Web_Credibility_Project web credibility] and proposed the principal components of online credibility and a general [[theory]] called [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credibility#cite_note-4 Prominence-Interpretation Theory].[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credibility]
''Scientific credibility'' has been defined as the extent to which [[science]] in general is recognized as a source of reliable [[information]] about the world. The term has also been applied more narrowly, as an [[assessment]] of the credibility of the work of an individual scientist or a field of [[research]]. Here, the phrase refers to how closely the work in question adheres to scientific [[principles]], such as the [[scientific method]]. The method most commonly used to assess the [[quality]] of science is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review peer review] and then publication as part of the scientific literature. Other approaches include the [[collaborative]] assessment of a [[topic]] by a group of [[experts]], this process can produce reviews such as those published by the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochrane_Collaboration Cochrane Collaboration], or the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change].
The general [[public]] can give a great deal of weight to [[perceptions]] of scientific [[authority]] in their [[decisions]] on controversial issues that involve scientific research, such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biotechnology biotechnology]. However, both the credibility and authority of science is questioned by groups with non-mainstream views, such as some advocates of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_medicine alternative medicine], or those who dispute the scientific [[consensus]] on a topic, such as [[AIDS]] denialists.
[[Category: The Sciences]]
[[Category: General Reference]]