Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The credibility of volunteered geographic information

  • Published:
GeoJournal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The proliferation of information sources as a result of networked computers and other interconnected devices has prompted significant changes in the amount, availability, and nature of geographic information. Among the more significant changes is the increasing amount of readily available volunteered geographic information. Although volunteered information has fundamentally enhanced geographic data, it has also prompted concerns with regard to its quality, reliability, and overall value. This essay situates these concerns as issues of information and source credibility by (a) examining the information environment fostering collective information contribution, (b) exploring the environment of information abundance, examining credibility and related notions within this environment, and leveraging extant research findings to understand user-generated geographic information, (c) articulating strategies to discern the credibility of volunteered geographic information (VGI), including relevant tools useful in this endeavor, and (d) outlining specific research questions germane to VGI and credibility.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The notion of credibility is allied closely with several concepts, including trust, reliability, accuracy, reputation, authority, and competence. Although several of these concepts include both of the core dimensions of credibility, some more closely resemble the trustworthiness dimension (e.g., reputation, reliability, trust), while others tend toward the expertise dimension (e.g., quality, accuracy, authority, competence).

  2. Instances where volunteered geographic information does not involve knowledge that is exclusive to “locals” immersed in their environments include tourists’ commentaries, images, or maps of a geographical location; or non-local “experts” volunteering opinions about a local resource management controversy or land use plan.

  3. Although this new credibility model offers exciting promise for information evaluation, it can also be problematic. Collective intelligence can function well in many circumstances, yet it is also subject to biases through processes of bandwagon effects and groupthink. Stated differently, crowds may not always be so wise: group opinion conformity can result from collective deliberation because individuals’ judgments are often influenced by others’ judgments. So, if biases are introduced early in the deliberative process, group dynamics such as the tendency toward social reaffirmation may end up perpetuating rather than challenging these biases. This in turn implies that more extreme opinions can sometimes be correct, yet unpopular. Under such circumstances, credibility may erroneously be equated with popularity, and accuracy can be compromised when dissent is easily suppressed (see Lanier 2006 for a fuller critique of “the new online collectivism”).

  4. Most of the concerns about credibility in wiki environments, and especially Wikipedia, revolve around author anonymity, which may not be the primary issue with most VGI systems, many of which may not include author anonymity as a central feature. Still, other issues regarding credibility exist, even in non-anonymous authorship systems. For example, while authorship in VGI systems may be explicit and known to users, the methods used to collect and produce geographic information (e.g., the origins of the raw data, the programs run on those data to produce the maps, and so forth) may not be apparent and yet are critical to consider when evaluating the credibility of the data.

References

  • Balram, S., & Dragicevic, S. (2006). Collaborative geographic information systems: Origins, boundaries, and structure. In S. Balram & S. Dragicevic (Eds.), Collaborative geographic information systems (pp. 1–23). Hershey, PA: IGI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bimber, B., Flanagin, A. J., & Stohl, C. (2005). Reconceptualizing collective action in the contemporary media environment. Communication Theory, 15, 365–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bishr, M., & Kuhn, W. (2007). Geospatial information bottom-up: A matter of trust and semantics. In S. Fabrikant & M. Wachowicz (Eds.), The European information society: Leading the way with geo-information (pp. 365–387). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bose, R., & Frew, J. (2005). Lineage retrieval for scientific data processing: A survey. ACM Computing Surveys, 37(1), 1–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callister, T. A., Jr. (2000). Media literacy: On-ramp to the literacy of the 21st century or cul-de-sac on the information superhighway. Advances in Reading/Language Research, 7, 403–420.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eagles, M., Katz, R. S., & Mark, D. (2000). Controversies in political redistricting GIS, geography, and society. Political Geography, 19(2), 135–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elmes, G., Challig, H., Karigomba, W., McCusker, B., & Weiner, D. (2004). Local knowledge doesn’t grow on trees: Community-integrated geographic information systems and rural community self-definition. In P. F. Fisher (Ed.), Advances in spatial data handling (pp. 29–40). Berlin: Springer Science and Business Media.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elwood, S. (2006a). Beyond cooptation or resistance: Urban spatial politics, community organizations, and GIS-based spatial narratives. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 96(2), 323–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elwood, S. (2006b). Critical issues in participatory GIS: Deconstructions, reconstructions, and new research directions. Transactions in GIS, 10(5), 693–708.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eysenbach, G. (2008). Credibility of health information and digital media: New perspectives and implications for youth. In M. J. Metzger & A. J. Flanagin (Eds.), Digital media, youth, and credibility. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eysenbach, G., & Kohler, C. (2002). How do consumers search for and appraise health information on the World Wide Web? Qualitative study using focus groups, usability tests, and in-depth interviews. British Medical Journal, 324, 573–577.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, F. (2000). Citizens, experts, and the environment: The politics of local knowledge. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flanagin, A. J., & Metzger, M. J. (2000). Perceptions of Internet information credibility. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 77(3), 515–540.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flanagin, A. J., & Metzger, M. J. (2007). The role of site features, user attributes, and information verification behaviors on the perceived credibility of Web-based information. New Media & Society, 9(2), 319–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flanagin, A. J., & Metzger, M. J. (2008). Digital media and youth: Unparalleled opportunity and unprecedented responsibility. In M. J. Metzger & A. J. Flanagin (Eds.), Digital media, youth, and credibility (pp. 5–27). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fogg, B. J., & Tseng, H. (1999). The elements of computer credibility. In Proceedings of ACM CHI 99 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Vol. 1, pp. 80–87). New York: ACM

  • Frew, J. (2007). Provenance and volunteered geographic information. Retrieved March 10, 2008 from http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/projects/vgi/docs/position/Frew_paper.pdf.

  • Fritch, J. W., & Cromwell, R. L. (2001). Evaluating Internet resources: Identity, affiliation, and cognitive authority in a networked world. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52(6), 499–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodchild, M. F. (2007). Citizens as sensors: The world of volunteered geography. GeoJournal, 69, 211–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Google. (2007). Introducing Google Earth outreach. Retrieved March 11, 2008 from http://www.google.com/intl/en/press/pressrel/outreach_20070625.html.

  • Gunther, A. C. (1992). Biased press or biased public? Attitudes toward media coverage of social groups. Public Opinion Quarterly, 56, 147–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris Interactive. (2007). Four in five of all U.S. adults—an estimated 178 million—go online. Retrieved January 24, 2008, from http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=827.

  • Hilligoss, B., & Rieh, S. Y. (in press). Developing a unifying framework of credibility assessment: Construct, heuristics, and interaction in context. Information Processing and Management. doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2007.10.001.

  • Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., & Kelley, J. J. (1953). Communication and persuasion. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, J. (2006). “Neogeography” blends blogs with online maps. National Geographic News. Retrieved March 6, 2008 from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/04/0425_060425_map_blogs.html.

  • Johnson, T. J., & Kaye, B. K. (2000). Using is believing: The influence of reliance on the credibility of online political information among politically interested Internet users. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 77(4), 865–879.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kyem, P. A. (2004). Of intractable conflicts and participatory GIS applications: The search for consensus amidst competing claims and institutional demands. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 94(1), 37–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lanier, J. (2006). Digital Maoism: The hazards of the new online collectivism. Edge, No. 183. Retrieved June 5, 2008 from http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/lanier06/lanier06_index.html.

  • Lenhart, A. (2006). User-generated content. Retrieved January 24, 2008, from Pew Internet Project: http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/76/presentation_display.asp.

  • Madden, M., & Fox, S. (2006). Riding the waves of “Web 2.0”: More than a buzzword, but still not easily defined. Retrieved January 18, 2008, from http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Web_2.0.pdf.

  • Marwell, G., & Oliver, P. (1993). The critical mass in collective action: A micro-social theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Metzger, M. J. (2007). Making sense of credibility on the Web: Models for evaluating online information and recommendations for future research. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(13), 2078–2091.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metzger, M. J., Flanagin, A. J., Eyal, K., Lemus, D. R., & McCann, R. (2003). Credibility in the 21st century: Integrating perspectives on source, message, and media credibility in the contemporary media environment. In P. Kalbfleisch (Ed.), Communication yearbook 27 (pp. 293–335). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Metzger, M. J., Flanagin, A. J., & Medders, R. (2008). Social and heuristic approaches to credibility evaluation. Manuscript submitted for publication.

  • Miller, C. C. (2006). A beast in the field: The Google maps mashup as GIS/2. Cartographica, 41(3), 187–199.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly, T. (2005). What is web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Retrieved January 22, 2007 from: http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web–20.html.

  • Peluso, N. L. (1995). Whose woods are these? Counter-mapping forest territories in Kalimantan, Indonesia. Antipode, 27(4), 383–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rieh, S. Y., & Danielson, D. R. (2007). Credibility: A multidisciplinary framework. In B. Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 41, pp. 307–364). Medford, New Jersey: Information Today.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schweiger, W. (2000). Media credibility—experience or image? A survey on the credibility of the World Wide Web in Germany in comparison to other media. European Journal of Communication, 15, 37–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sieber, R. (2006). Public participation geographic information systems: A literature review and framework. Annals of the American Association of Geography, 96(3), 491–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sui, D. Z. (2008). The wikification of GIS and its consequences: Or Angelina Jolie’s new tattoo and the future of GIS. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 32(1), 1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sundar, S. (2008). The MAIN model: A heuristic approach to understanding technology effects on credibility. In M. Metzger & A. Flanagin (Eds.), Digital media, youth, and credibility (pp. 73–100). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tseng, H., & Fogg, B. J. (1999). Credibility and computing technology. Communications of the ACM, 42(5), 39–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tulloch, D. L. (2007a). Many, many maps: Empowerment and online participatory mapping. First Monday, 12(2). Retrieved March 7, 2008 from http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue12_2/tulloch/index.html.

  • Tulloch, D. L. (2007b). Position paper. Retrieved March 7, 2008 from http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/projects/vgi/docs/position/Tulloch_Paper.pdf.

  • Turner, A. (2006). Introduction to neogeography. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walther, J. B., Wang, Z., & Loh, T. (2004). The effect of top-level domains and advertisements on health web site credibility. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 6(3):e24. <URL: http://www.jmir.org/2004/3/e24/>.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiner, D., & Harris, T. M. (2003). Community-integrated GIS for land reform in South Africa. URISA Journal, 15, 61–73.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Communication, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, 93106, USA

    Andrew J. Flanagin & Miriam J. Metzger

Authors
  1. Andrew J. Flanagin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Miriam J. Metzger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew J. Flanagin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Flanagin, A.J., Metzger, M.J. The credibility of volunteered geographic information. GeoJournal 72, 137–148 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-008-9188-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-008-9188-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation