You are here:

Sense-making and credibility of health information on the social web: A multi-method study accessing tagging and tag clouds PROCEEDINGS

, , , , University of Toronto, Canada

E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, in Quebec City, Canada ISBN 978-1-880094-63-1 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Chesapeake, VA


Since its inception, the Internet has been used for a wide variety of objectives, few more popular than health care. Many professionals as well as laypersons have created web sites with health-oriented content. Recent developments in Internet technologies, referred to as Web 2.0 and social software, have emphasized the use of applications that are collaborative in nature. Users are now creating, editing, and combining content from a variety of sources, as well as sharing their own anecdotal information. Material posted online is tagged or labeled using individual indexing systems or folksonomies. Tag clouds visually represent collections of tags to facilitate navigation at a Web site. In order to help users find credible health content, we need to understand how information is being tagged. Using a sense-making theoretical framework, this research intends to explore the ways in which users tag online content and use tag clouds to find health information.


Witteman, H., Chandrashekar, S., Betel, L. & O’Grady, L. (2007). Sense-making and credibility of health information on the social web: A multi-method study accessing tagging and tag clouds. In T. Bastiaens & S. Carliner (Eds.), Proceedings of E-Learn 2007--World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 6905-6910). Quebec City, Canada: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved November 14, 2018 from .


View References & Citations Map


  1. Anderson, P. (2007). What is Web 2.0? Ideas, technologies and implications for education (No. TSW0701). London, England: Joint Information Systems Committee.
  2. Dervin, B. (1992). From the mind's eye of the user: the sense-making qualitative-quantitative methodology. In D. Glazier & R. Powell (Eds.), Qualitative methods in information management (pp. 61-84). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
  3. Dervin, B. (1998). Sense-making theory and practice: an overview of user interests in knowledge seeking and use. Journal of Knowledge Management, 2(2), 36-45.
  4. Eysenbach, G., Powell, J., Kuss, O. & Sa, E.R. (2002). Empirical studies assessing the quality of health information for consumers on the worldwide web: a systematic review, JAMA 287 (20), 2691-2700.
  5. Fogg, B. (2003). Persuasive Technology, Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, 3073-3077.
  6. Godwin-Jones, R. (2006). Emerging technologies: tagclouds in the blogosphere: Electronic Literacy and Social Networking. Language, Learning& Technology, 10(2), 8-15.
  7. Golder, S.A., & Huberman, B.A. (2006). Usage patterns of collaborative tagging systems. Journal of Information Science, 32(2), 198-208.
  8. Halvey, M.J., & Keane, M.T. (2007). An assessment of tag presentation techniques. In Proceedings of the 16th international conference on WorldWide Web (pp. 1313-1314). Banff, Alberta, Canada: ACM Press.
  9. Hasan-Montero, Y., & Herrero-Solana, V. (2006). Improving Tag-Clouds as a Visual Information Retrieval Interfaces. Paper presented at the International Conference on Multidisciplinary Information Sciences and Technologies, Merida, Spain.
  10. Jadad, A.R., & Gagliardi, A. (1998). Rating health information on the Internet: navigating to knowledge or to Babel? Journal of the American Medical Association, 279(8), 611-614.
  11. Jøsang, A., Ismail, R., & Boyd, C. (2007). A survey of trust and reputation systems for online service provision. Decision Support Systems (43), 618– 644.
  12. Kim, H.L., Hwang, S.H., & Kim, H.G. (2007). FCA-based approach for mining contextualized folksonomy. In Proceedings of the 2007 ACM symposium on Applied computing (pp. 1340-1345). Seoul, Korea: ACM Press.
  13. Kuo, B.Y.-L., Hentrich, T., Good, B.M., & Wilkinson, M.D. (2007). Tagclouds for summarizing web search results. In Proceedings of the 16th international conference on WorldWide Web (pp. 1203-1204). Banff, Alberta, Canada: ACM Press.
  14. Linden, G., Smith, B., & York, J. (2003). Recommendations: Item-to-Item Collaborative Filtering. IEEE Internet Computing, January-February 2003 (76-80).
  15. Millard, D.E., & Ross, M. (2006). Web 2.0: hypertext by any other name? Paper presented at the Proceedings of the seventeenth conference on Hypertext and hypermedia, Odense, Denmark.
  16. O'Reilly, T. (2005). What Is Web 2.0 Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software. Retrieved April 2, 2007, from
  17. O'Grady, L. (2006). Future directions for depicting credibility in healthcare websites. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 75(1), 58-65.
  18. Petty, R.E., & Cacioppo, J.T. (1986). Elaboration likelihood model. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (vol. 19, pp. 123–205). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
  19. Rieh, S.Y., & Belkin, N.J. (1998). Understanding judgment of information quality and cognitive authority in the WWW. In C.M. Preston (Ed.), Proceedings of the 61st ASIS Annual Meeting (pp. 279-289).
  20. Silberg, W., Lundberg, G., & Musacchio, R. (1997). Assessing, controlling, and assuring the quality of medical information on the Internet: Caveant lector et viewor--Let the reader and viewer beware. Journal of the American Medical Association, 277(15), 1244-1245.
  21. Treese, W. (2006). Web 2.0: is it really different? netWorker, 10(2), 15-17.
  22. Wathen, C.N., & Burkell, J. (2002). Believe it or not: Factors influencing credibility on the Web. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53, 134-144.
  23. Yew, J., Gibson, F., & Teasley, S. (2006). Learning by tagging: group knowledge formation in a self-organizing learning community. In Proceedings of the 7th international conference on Learning sciences (pp. 1010-1011). Bloomington, Indiana:

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact