Evaluating Internet Resources: Identity, Affiliation, and Cognitive Authority in a Networked World John W. Fritch Assistant Professor of Library Science, Hicks Undergraduate Library, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907. E-mail: jfritch1@purdue.edu Robert L. Cromwell Cromwell Consulting and Research, P.O. Box 2184, West Lafayette, IN 47907. E-mail: cromwell@ecn.purdue.edu Many people fail to properly evaluate Internet informa- tion. This is often due to a lack of understanding of the issues surrounding evaluation and authority, and, more specifically, a lack of understanding of the structure and modi operandi of the Internet and the Domain Name System. The fact that evaluation is not being properly performed on Internet information means both that questionable information is being used recklessly, with- out adequately assessing its authority, and good infor- mation is being disregarded, because trust in the infor- mation is lacking. Both scenarios may be resolved by ascribing proper amounts of cognitive authority to Inter- net information. Traditional measures of authority present in a print environment are lacking on the Inter- net, and, even when occasionally present, are of ques- tionable veracity. A formal model and evaluative criteria are herein suggested and explained to provide a means for accurately ascribing cognitive authority in a net- worked environment; the model is unique in its repre- sentation of overt and covert affiliations as a mechanism for ascribing proper authority to Internet information. Cognitive Authority and the Internet Many authors have stated that the evaluation of Internet information is similar to the evaluation of print materials, and that many of the same evaluative criteria apply in both media (Brandt, 1996; Katz, 1997; McMurdo, 1998; Tate & Alexander, 1996). “Authority” is a recurring criterion with regard to evaluation of both print and electronic informa- tion. Yet the word “authority” has multiple meanings, and without exposition it is difficult to determine the exact meaning of authority in this context. For clarification, we can turn to Patrick Wilson (1983) and his seminal work in social epistemology. Wilson dif- ferentiates between different basic types of authority, such as cognitive authority (influence on thoughts), administra- tive authority (influence on actions), and institutional au- thority (influence derived from institutional affiliation). Wilson provides a basic definition of cognitive authority: “Cognitive authority is influence on one’s thoughts that one would consciously recognize as proper.” He further clarifies the meaning of cognitive authority by stating that cognitive authority is related to credibility, and that credibility has two main components: competence and trustworthiness. Wilson eventually links the cognitive authority of a work directly to the cognitive authority of its author(s). Questions often arise about how much cognitive author- ity to ascribe to a particular individual or institution; ques- tions involving quality and credibility repeatedly recur as we work with information and information sources. Espe- cially on the Internet, we are sometimes forced to ascribe authority at least partially through institutional or organiza- tional affiliation because we lack other bona fide authority cues and indicators. In fact, in a study of information quality and authority on the World Wide Web, Rieh and Belkin (1998) found that organizational affiliation was one of the most important factors used by faculty members and grad- uate students in ascribing authority to Internet information. Cognitive authority, as Wilson defines it, seems to be what is being referred to in articles discussing the evaluation of Internet information, although some authors may be referring specifically to institutional authority. Although there is no definitive answer to the question of how much cognitive authority a specific work in either print or elec- tronic form deserves, the authors of this article posit that substantial information can be gathered to inform discus- sions of quality and authority with regard to Internet infor- mation, and analysis should go beyond institutional author- ity to also examine affiliations— both overt and covert— between individuals and institutions. Wilson has indicated that several things are essential in ascribing cognitive au- Received July 19, 1999; Revised August 23, 2000; accepted September 21, 2000 © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ● Published online 8 March 2001 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 52(6):499 –507, 2001