公信力

可信度或公信力，包括來源或訊息可信度的客觀和主觀成分。

可信度可以追溯到亞里士多德的修辭學理論。亞里士多德將修辭定義為在每種情況下都能看到可能有說服力的東西的能力。他將說服手段分為三類，即 Ethos（來源的可信度）、Pathos（情感或動機的訴求）和 Logos（用於支持主張的邏輯），他認為這三類有能力影響訊息的接受者。根據亞里士多德的說法，「Ethos」一詞涉及說話者的性格。說話者意圖是（使其表達內容）顯得可信。事實上，演講者的「ethos」是一種修辭策略，被演說者用以「激發其聽眾的信任」。

可信度有兩個關鍵組成部分：可信賴性（英語：trustworthiness）和專業知識，兩者都具有客觀和主觀成分。可信賴性更多地基於主觀因素，但可以包括客觀衡量標準，例如已確立的信度。專業知識可以類似地主觀感知，但也包括相對客觀的訊息或來源特徵（例如，證書、認證或資訊品質）。^[1] 可信度的次要組成部分包括來源動態性（英語：dynamism，形而上學術語；或魅力）和外貌吸引力。

可信度是衡量訊息接收者是否願意接受另一個人的陳述為有效的指標；確保可信度，該些表達者及其行為才會被相信。可信度是一種歸因於他人的品質。多年來，法學、心理學、政治學和傳播學研究都致力於這個主題。可信度對於行動動機的有效性至關重要，因此在公共關係、市場研究和民意調查中發揮着重要作用。如果期望的形象和接受度（外部形象）與目標群體不匹配，那就可能會產生可信度差距等現象。

自 1990 年代中期以來，互聯網資訊可信度已成為一個重要議題，這是因為互聯網越來越成為一種資訊來源。^[2]

新聞公信力

根據職業記者協會制定的道德守則，職業操守是記者公信力的基石。（參閱前言（頁面存檔備份，存於互聯網檔案館））

科學公信力

科學公信力被定義為，可提供公認可靠信息源的一般科學的延伸。^[3]該術語也做狹義用，如針對科學家或某一領域研究的公信力評估。此地，科學公信力指研究成果是否遵循科學原理。^[4]評估科學成果質量最常用的方法是同行評審和科學著作的發表。^[5]其他方法也包括由一組專家共同評估，這一方法的能夠產生很多專業的評論，發表在科克倫協作網^[6]和政府間氣候變化專門委員會^[7]之類的網站上。

社會大眾左右着爭議性問題的科學權威判斷，如生物技術。^[8]同時，科學的公信力和權威性受到非主流觀點的質疑。他們鼓吹替代醫學^[9]，質疑科學共識（如提出愛滋病重估運動）。^[10]^[11]

參考資料

[1]
Flanagin and Metzger (2008), Digital media and youth: Unparalleled opportunity and unprecedented responsibility. In M. Metzger, & A. Flanagin (Editors), Digitaingl media, youth, and credibility (pp. 5–28). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
[2]
Credibility.ucsb.edu 互聯網檔案館的存檔，存檔日期7 May 2015.
[3]
Bocking, Stephen. Nature's experts: science, politics, and the environment. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. 2004: 164. ISBN 0-8135-3398-8.
[4]
Alkin, Marvin C. Evaluation roots: tracing theorists' views and influences. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage. 2004: 134. ISBN 0-7619-2894-4.
[5]
Bocking, Stephen. Nature's experts: science, politics, and the environment. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. 2004: 165. ISBN 0-8135-3398-8.
[6]
What is a Cochrane review （頁面存檔備份，存於互聯網檔案館） The Cochrane Collaboration, Accessed 05 January 2009
[7]
Agrawala, S. Structural and Process History of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (PDF). Climatic Change. 1998, 39 (4): 621–642. doi:10.1023/A:1005312331477.^{[永久失效連結]}
[8]
Brossard, Dominique; Nisbet, Matthew C. Deference to Scientific Authority Among a Low Information Public: Understanding U.S. Opinion on Agricultural Biotechnology. International Journal of Public Opinion Research. 2007, 19 (1): 24 [2011-03-12]. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edl003. （原始內容存檔於2010-08-24）. 簡明摘要.
[9]
O'callaghan, F.V.; Jordan, N. Postmodern values, attitudes and the use of complementary medicine. Complementary Therapies in Medicine. 2003, 11 (1): 28–32 [2011-03-12]. PMID 12667972. doi:10.1016/S0965-2299(02)00109-7. （原始內容存檔於2012-07-21）.
[10]
Smith TC, Novella SP. HIV denial in the Internet era. PLoS Med. August 2007, 4 (8): e256 [2017-11-23]. PMC 1949841 . PMID 17713982. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040256. （原始內容存檔於2009-02-10）.
[11]
Epstein, Steven. Impure science: AIDS, activism, and the politics of knowledge. Berkeley: University of California Press. 1996. ISBN 0-520-21445-5.

著作

Chesney, T. (2006). An empirical examination of Wikipedia’s credibility. First Monday, 11(11), URL: http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_11/chesney/index.html （頁面存檔備份，存於互聯網檔案館）
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. Available at: https://web.archive.org/web/20110720074837/http://www.comm.ucsb.edu/documents/flanaginmetzger.pdf
Flanagin, A. J., & Metzger, M. (2008). Digital media and youth: Unparalleled opportunity and unprecedented responsibility. In M. Metzger, & A. Flanagin (Editors), Digital media, youth, and credibility (pp. 5–28). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Mattus, Maria (2007). Finding Credible Information: A Challenge to Students Writing Academic Essays. Human IT 9(2), 1-28. Hentet 2007-09-04 fra: http://www.hb.se/bhs/ith/2-9/mm.pdf （頁面存檔備份，存於互聯網檔案館）
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. Available at: https://web.archive.org/web/20100707184920/http://www.comm.ucsb.edu/publications/flanagin/Metzger%20Flanagin%20et%20al%202003%20%28CY%29.pdf
Metzger, M.J., & Flanagin, A.J. (Eds.) (2008). Digital Media, Youth, and Credibility. Cambridge: MIT Press. Available at: http://www.mitpressjournals.org/toc/dmal/-/2
Rieh, Soo Young & Danielson, David R. (2007). Credibility: A multidisciplinary framework. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 41, 307-364.
Savolainen, R. (2007). Media credibility and cognitive authority. The case of seeking orienting information. Information Research, 12(3) paper 319. Available at https://web.archive.org/web/20180416064908/http://www.informationr.net/ir///12-3/paper319.html

外鏈

[1] [1]
Flanagin and Metzger (2008), Digital media and youth: Unparalleled opportunity and unprecedented responsibility. In M. Metzger, & A. Flanagin (Editors), Digitaingl media, youth, and credibility (pp. 5–28). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

[2] [2]
Credibility.ucsb.edu 互聯網檔案館的存檔，存檔日期7 May 2015.

[3] [3]
Bocking, Stephen. Nature's experts: science, politics, and the environment. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. 2004: 164. ISBN 0-8135-3398-8.

[4] [4]
Alkin, Marvin C. Evaluation roots: tracing theorists' views and influences. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage. 2004: 134. ISBN 0-7619-2894-4.

[5] [5]
Bocking, Stephen. Nature's experts: science, politics, and the environment. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. 2004: 165. ISBN 0-8135-3398-8.

[6] [6]
What is a Cochrane review （頁面存檔備份，存於互聯網檔案館） The Cochrane Collaboration, Accessed 05 January 2009

[Agrawala1998-7] [7]
Agrawala, S. Structural and Process History of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (PDF). Climatic Change. 1998, 39 (4): 621–642. doi:10.1023/A:1005312331477.^{[永久失效連結]}

[Brossard2007-8] [8]
Brossard, Dominique; Nisbet, Matthew C. Deference to Scientific Authority Among a Low Information Public: Understanding U.S. Opinion on Agricultural Biotechnology. International Journal of Public Opinion Research. 2007, 19 (1): 24 [2011-03-12]. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edl003. （原始內容存檔於2010-08-24）. 簡明摘要.

[9] [9]
O'callaghan, F.V.; Jordan, N. Postmodern values, attitudes and the use of complementary medicine. Complementary Therapies in Medicine. 2003, 11 (1): 28–32 [2011-03-12]. PMID 12667972. doi:10.1016/S0965-2299(02)00109-7. （原始內容存檔於2012-07-21）.

[10] [10]
Smith TC, Novella SP. HIV denial in the Internet era. PLoS Med. August 2007, 4 (8): e256 [2017-11-23]. PMC 1949841 . PMID 17713982. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040256. （原始內容存檔於2009-02-10）.

[11] [11]
Epstein, Steven. Impure science: AIDS, activism, and the politics of knowledge. Berkeley: University of California Press. 1996. ISBN 0-520-21445-5.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]