Learning Portfolio Week 13

 Learning Portfolio 4


Question One

 Credibility, or our perception of credibility, is described by B.J Fogg (2003) as coming down to two basic views; trustworthiness and expertise.

If someone, a company or a website is perceived to have a good measure of either of these than more often or not they are deemed credible. A large amount of people base credibility on image, and even more base it upon personal similarities (if someone has a similar cultural background) Fogg (2003). Either way the wide and easy accessibility of the web has resulted in information dilution in one sense and information flooding in another. Websites are easy to create, and with millions of new websites the quality of information on the web has been diluted. At the same time the web has become an online extravaganza for advertising, buying and selling. Users are literally flooded with endless threats (spam) and endless advertisements.

Such accessibility of the web makes it vital for users to filter webpage’s, based on how refutable their information, creators and companies are. Student’s especially need to go to great lengths before committing to a website as it could essentially mean the difference between a pass and a fail. Within some of my units are complex topics that require online resources as well as books however finding a credible website sometimes seems impossible as there are more and more online ‘encyclopaedia’s’ that allow users (regardless of their profession) to put up posts on various topics. Such websites try for an image of credibility, trying to “…persuade…” (Fogg, 2003, p. 147) users to visit their site and use their information.


Question Two

“Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit.”

If we assume anyone to be literally anyone then, those who so choose to use the information from Wikipedia, are in the hands of the anonymous (which could or could not include internet anarchists or merely the occasional eleven year old girl).

Quite simply Wikipedia is not a dependable website and the quality of the information is the farthest from satisfactory.  Wikipedia is only slightly useful as a pre-reader – for example if you researching something entirely new and don’t have the slightest hint as to what it is about than Wikipedia is helpful, but that’s where the line stops.

With no system in balance in terms of monitoring what is posted and edited, it seems many are victim to the disputable information as “…former Robert Kennedy aide John Seigenthaler wrote in USA Today;’…For four months, Wikipedia depicted me as a suspected assassin…”


 Question Three

In its short history the internet has transformed and excelled beyond measure. It has changed so much in its history that assumedly it will continue to do so. We can only assume that people will continue to become masters of the internet, expanding their skills as the internet progresses.

So, what does this mean for web credibility?

We can presume that the current issues; such as online security, privacy and credibility, facing web sites today will still be prevalent in years to come – they will presumably be more serious.

Online Security

Online security is an issue currently;

However it can only worsen with the progression of the internet

I believe that this will be a very serious issue, as new technologies will only make hacking easier

Sites where money transactions take place (EBay, online banks etc.) will have to put numerable measures in place to ensure maximum security

People will have to be more questioning before doing an online transaction

Sites will have to work hard to maintain credibility


Sites will have maintain high security standards to ensure the privacy of its members 

People will have to be more savvy when choosing networking sites, and what content they put on the internet 

Even simple things like email accounts – credibility checks should be carried out 

I think there will be even more sites trying to lure customers 

Spam and infections will become more rampant  



I believe trying to gain recognition or credibility will be much harder for websites

It will be harder for sites to stand out from other badly put together sites as web design becomes easier

Credible sites will have to maintain quality as there will be an upsurge in low quality and questionable web sites.




This is an example of a reputed website. The Oxford Journals are widely regarded as strong information research material.


The Hunger Project Website is a credibility earned site. I chose it because I visit the site often; it provides constant updates on campaigns, recent news and consistently accurate and true information.


This is a presumed type of credibility. It has an ‘org’ at the end of its URL, and viewers would simply presume that it provides true and update information on contemporary art.


A professional looking website, this is surface credibility. This site looks professionally done, and the title of the company helps give the site a sense of expertise.

 Activity 2

( Presentation Project is in Week Eleven’s Post)

Assignment 1 Creative Report

Picture 11

Picture 12

Picture 13

Picture 14

Picture 15

Picture 16

Picture 17



Terdiman, D. (2009). ‘Growing Pains for Wikipedia’. Retrieved May 26, 2009, from Cnet News: http://news.cnet.com/Growing-pains-for-Wikipedia/2100-1025_3-5981119.html

Fogg, B. J. (2003). Credibility and the World Wide Web. In Persuasive Technology: Using Computers to Change What We Think and Do (pp. 122‐125). Amsterdam: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.








~ by 2gracie on June 2, 2009.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: