GeoJournal

, Volume 72, Issue 3–4, pp 137–148 | Cite as

The credibility of volunteered geographic information

Article

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.

Keywords

Volunteered geographic information VGI Credibility User-generated content Social computing Information trust 

References

  1. 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
  2. Bimber, B., Flanagin, A. J., & Stohl, C. (2005). Reconceptualizing collective action in the contemporary media environment. Communication Theory, 15, 365–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Bose, R., & Frew, J. (2005). Lineage retrieval for scientific data processing: A survey. ACM Computing Surveys, 37(1), 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. Eagles, M., Katz, R. S., & Mark, D. (2000). Controversies in political redistricting GIS, geography, and society. Political Geography, 19(2), 135–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Elwood, S. (2006b). Critical issues in participatory GIS: Deconstructions, reconstructions, and new research directions. Transactions in GIS, 10(5), 693–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. Fischer, F. (2000). Citizens, experts, and the environment: The politics of local knowledge. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Flanagin, A. J., & Metzger, M. J. (2000). Perceptions of Internet information credibility. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 77(3), 515–540.Google Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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
  16. 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: ACMGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.
  18. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Goodchild, M. F. (2007). Citizens as sensors: The world of volunteered geography. GeoJournal, 69, 211–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Google. (2007). Introducing Google Earth outreach. Retrieved March 11, 2008 from http://www.google.com/intl/en/press/pressrel/outreach_20070625.html.
  21. Gunther, A. C. (1992). Biased press or biased public? Attitudes toward media coverage of social groups. Public Opinion Quarterly, 56, 147–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., & Kelley, J. J. (1953). Communication and persuasion. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  25. 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.
  26. 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
  27. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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.
  29. Lenhart, A. (2006). User-generated content. Retrieved January 24, 2008, from Pew Internet Project: http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/76/presentation_display.asp.
  30. 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.
  31. Marwell, G., & Oliver, P. (1993). The critical mass in collective action: A micro-social theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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
  34. Metzger, M. J., Flanagin, A. J., & Medders, R. (2008). Social and heuristic approaches to credibility evaluation. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  35. Miller, C. C. (2006). A beast in the field: The Google maps mashup as GIS/2. Cartographica, 41(3), 187–199.Google Scholar
  36. 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.
  37. Peluso, N. L. (1995). Whose woods are these? Counter-mapping forest territories in Kalimantan, Indonesia. Antipode, 27(4), 383–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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
  39. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sieber, R. (2006). Public participation geographic information systems: A literature review and framework. Annals of the American Association of Geography, 96(3), 491–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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
  43. Tseng, H., & Fogg, B. J. (1999). Credibility and computing technology. Communications of the ACM, 42(5), 39–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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.
  45. Tulloch, D. L. (2007b). Position paper. Retrieved March 7, 2008 from http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/projects/vgi/docs/position/Tulloch_Paper.pdf.
  46. Turner, A. (2006). Introduction to neogeography. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media.Google Scholar
  47. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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
  49. Weiner, D., & Harris, T. M. (2003). Community-integrated GIS for land reform in South Africa. URISA Journal, 15, 61–73.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of CommunicationUniversity of California, Santa BarbaraSanta BarbaraUSA

Personalised recommendations