Developing a framework for assessing information quality on the World Wide Web

Informing Science

Volumn 8, Issue , 2005, Pages 159-172

  Knight, Shirlee Ann ^a   Burn, Janice ^a  

^a EDITH COWAN UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Data Quality; Information Quality; Information Retrieval; IQIP; Search Engines

Indexed keywords

EID: 27944471450     PISSN: 15214672     EISSN: 15214672     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.28945/493     Document Type: Review

References (32)

1. Alexander, J. E. & Tate, M. A. (1999). Web wisdom: How to evaluate and create information quality on the web. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
2. Barnett, A. (1999). A survey of Internet searches and their results. Reference & User Services Quarterly. Winter 1999, 39 (2), 177.
3. Brooks, T. A. (2003). Web search: How the Web has changed information retrieval. Information Research, 8 (3); April.
4. Dedeke, A (2000). A conceptual framework for developing quality measures for information systems. Proceedings of 5th International Conference on Information Quality, p. 126-128.
5. Eppler, M J. & Wittig, D. (2000). Conceptualizing information quality: A Review of Information Quality Frameworks from the Last Ten Years. Proceedings of 5th International Conference on Information Quality, p. 83-96.
6. Eppler, M. & Muenzenmayer, P. (2002). Measuring information quality in the web context: A survey of state-of-the-art instruments and an application methodology. Proceedings of 7th International Conference on Information Quality, p. 187-196.
7. Hawkins, D. T. (1999). What is credible information? Online, 23 (5), 86-89.
8. Hölscher, C., & Strube, G. (2000). Web search behaviour of Internet experts and Newbies. Proceedings of the 9th conference on World Wide Web, pp. 81-101.
9. Iivonen, M. (1995). Searchers and searchers: differences between the most and least consistent searches. Proceedings of the 18th ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, Seattle, Washington, United States, 149.
10. Johnson, J. D. (2003). On context of information seeking. Information Processing and Management, 39 (5), 735-760.
11. Jacobs, I. (2002). Architectural principles of the World Wide Web, W3C working draft. World Wide Web Consortium (W3C.org). Retrieved 20 March 2003 from http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-Webarch-20020830/
12. Kahn, B. K.; Strong, D. M. & Wang, R. Y. (2002). Information quality benchmarks: Product and service performance. Communications of the ACM, 45 (4), 84-192.
13. Katerattanakul, P. & Siau, K. (1999). Measuring information quality of web sites: Development of an instrument. Proceedings of the 20th international conference on Information Systems. Charlotte, North Carolina, United States; p. 279-285
14. Klein, B. D. (2001). User perceptions of data quality: Internet and traditional text sources. The Journal of Computer Information Systems; 41 (4), 9-18.
15. Klein B. D. (2002). When do users detect information quality problems on the World Wide Web? American Conference in Information Systems, 2002, p1101.
16. Leung, H. K. N. (2001). Quality metrics for intranet applications. Information & Management, 38 (3), 137-152.
17. Naumann, F. & Rolker, C. (2000). Assessment methods for information quality criteria. Proceedings of 5th International Conference on Information Quality, p. 148-162
18. Quinn, B. (2003). Overcoming psychological obstacles to optimal online search performance. The Electronic Library, 21 (2), 142-153.
19. Rieh, S. Y. (2002). Judgment of information quality and cognitive authority in the Web. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53 (2), 145-161.
20. Rose, D. E.; Levinson, D. (2004). Understanding user goals in web search. Proceedings of the 13th international conference on World Wide Web, 2004.
21. Shankar, G. & Watts, S. (2003). A relevant, believable approach for data quality assessment. Proceedings of 8th International Conference on Information Quality, p. 178-189; 2003
22. Shanks, G. & Corbitt, B. (1999). Understanding data quality: Social and cultural aspects. Proceedings of the 10th Australasian Conference on Information Systems; p785
23. Strong, D. M.; Lee, Y. W. & Wang, R. Y. (1997). Data quality in context. Communications of the ACM, 40 (5), 103-110.
24. Tayi, G. K. & Ballou, D. P. (1998). Examining data quality. Communications of the ACM, 41 (2), 54-57.
25. Tsoi, A. C., Burn, J. & Gori, M. (2003). Building a prototype for quality information retrieval from the Internet. Australian Research Council Discovery Application; Proj ID: DP0452862.
26. Tsoi, A.C., Forsali, D.; Gori, M.; Hagenbuchner, M. & Scarselli, F. (2003). A novel focused crawler. Poster Proceedings of the 12th World Wide Web Conference, 20-24 May 2003, Budapest, Hungary
27. Tsoi, A.C., Morini, G.; Scarselli, F.; Hagenbuchner, M. & Maggini, M. (2003). Adaptive ranking of web pages. Proceedings of the 12th World Wide Web Conference, 20-24 May 2003, Budapest, Hungary
28. Wang, R.Y. & Strong, D.M. (1996). Beyond accuracy: What data quality means to data consumers. Journal of Management Information Systems, Spring, 5-33.
29. Wang, Y. (2001). Link based clustering of web search results. Proceedings of 2nd Web-Age Information Management (WAIM) Conference. Xi'an, China, p.225-236.
30. Yee, P. L.; Hsieh-Yee, I.; Pierce, G. R.; Grome, R. & Schantz, L. (2004). Self-evaluative intrusive thoughts impede successful searching on the Internet. Computers in Human Behaviour, 20 (1).
31. Zeist, R.H.J. & Hendriks, P.R.H. (1996). Specifying software quality with the extended ISO model. Software Quality Management IV - Improving Quality, BCS, 145-160.
32. Zhu, X. & Gauch, S. (2000). Incorporating quality metrics in centralized/distributed information retrieval on the World Wide Web. Proceedings of the 23rd annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval, Athens, Greece. 2000. p.288-295