Credibility, however large or small the community, can be a subjective quality. It is not easy to single-handedly convince the public that the reporter working next to you should be regarded as "The Credible One." It may be harder still if the citizen journalist him or herself is the one pitching for the much desired label. Credibility could take years to build (through consistently reliable reporting), or it could happen virtually overnight (being at the right place at the right time).

Credibility could mean constantly appeasing the majority of the audience by publishing or posting views that they like to hear, even though some elements in the report may not be true. A self-opinionated citizen journalist that conjures up a conspiracy theory from thin air can be regarded as "credible" if the theory, by chance, is in tune with the mere suspicions of many. But can the theory be tested? Just as different people see different elements in a photograph, users may have varying bases or criteria for judgment, ranging from personal to professional.

It is part of GroundReport's mission to prohibit plagiarized and copyright-infringing material. This can be seen as an active form of policing by the team of community and volunteer editors. But of the reports that do make it through to publication, how do we determine which are more credible than others?

Even the five-star user rating system used by GroundReport may not be a 100-percent proof of the credibility level of any particular contributor, for the reason that not all users who view or read the news material are driven to actually post a rating. In that sense, credibility is the result of evaluations made by the "active" consumers of the citizen news material.

In the long run, user feedback may work in determining credibility, or it may not. What if we were to employ tried-and-tested journalists to determine whether the citizen reports are credible? Would it make things better or worse?

What other ways can we distinguish credible citizen reporting? Possibilities could include external watchdogs, computer recognition, fact checking agencies, even reality TV shows. How about a global citizen journalism platform that covers citizen reporters themselves?

Feel free to share your thoughts on this.

شات