公信力

可信度或公信力，包括来源或讯息可信度的客观和主观成分。

可信度可以追溯到亚里士多德的修辞学理论。亚里士多德将修辞定义为在每种情况下都能看到可能有说服力的东西的能力。他将说服手段分为三类，即 Ethos（来源的可信度）、Pathos（情感或动机的诉求）和 Logos（用于支持主张的逻辑），他认为这三类有能力影响讯息的接受者。根据亚里士多德的说法，“Ethos”一词涉及说话者的性格。说话者意图是（使其表达内容）显得可信。事实上，演讲者的“ethos”是一种修辞策略，被演说者用以“激发其听众的信任”。

可信度有两个关键组成部分：可信赖性（英语：trustworthiness）和专业知识，两者都具有客观和主观成分。可信赖性更多地基于主观因素，但可以包括客观衡量标准，例如已确立的信度。专业知识可以类似地主观感知，但也包括相对客观的讯息或来源特征（例如，证书、认证或资讯品质）。^[1] 可信度的次要组成部分包括来源动态性（英语：dynamism，形而上学术语；或魅力）和外貌吸引力。

可信度是衡量讯息接收者是否愿意接受另一个人的陈述为有效的指标；确保可信度，该些表达者及其行为才会被相信。可信度是一种归因于他人的品质。多年来，法学、心理学、政治学和传播学研究都致力于这个主题。可信度对于行动动机的有效性至关重要，因此在公共关系、市场研究和民意调查中发挥着重要作用。如果期望的形象和接受度（外部形象）与目标群体不匹配，那就可能会产生可信度差距等现象。

自 1990 年代中期以来，互联网资讯可信度已成为一个重要议题，这是因为互联网越来越成为一种资讯来源。^[2]

新闻公信力

根据职业记者协会制定的道德守则，职业操守是记者公信力的基石。（参阅前言（页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆））

科学公信力

科学公信力被定义为，可提供公认可靠信息源的一般科学的延伸。^[3]该术语也做狭义用，如针对科学家或某一领域研究的公信力评估。此地，科学公信力指研究成果是否遵循科学原理。^[4]评估科学成果质量最常用的方法是同行评审和科学著作的发表。^[5]其他方法也包括由一组专家共同评估，这一方法的能够产生很多专业的评论，发表在科克伦协作网^[6]和政府间气候变化专门委员会^[7]之类的网站上。

社会大众左右着争议性问题的科学权威判断，如生物技术。^[8]同时，科学的公信力和权威性受到非主流观点的质疑。他们鼓吹替代医学^[9]，质疑科学共识（如提出艾滋病重估运动）。^[10]^[11]

参考资料

[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 互联网档案馆的存档，存档日期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 （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆） 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.^{[永久失效链接]}
[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. （原始内容存档于2010-08-24）. 简明摘要.
[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. （原始内容存档于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. （原始内容存档于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 （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆）
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 （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆）
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

外链

[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 互联网档案馆的存档，存档日期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 （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆） 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.^{[永久失效链接]}

[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. （原始内容存档于2010-08-24）. 简明摘要.

[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. （原始内容存档于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. （原始内容存档于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]