Since 1995, the Internet has delivered precisely this power to ordinary people. Instant messengers, chat rooms, personal home pages and Web logs are making international journalists out of any dog on the Internet.

In the same book, Schudson goes on to say that in such a scenario the world would be soon begging for a legitimate source of information to make sense of the several versions of truth that would be floating around.

How many times do you read a sensational bit of news in an email or on some person's Web page and then pause to wonder if it is true!

Schudson suggested that people would find a way out by showing preference for a legitimate news source that is relatively savvy, relatively nonpartisan and thus relatively trustworthy.

If words like 'savvy', 'nonpartisan' and 'trustworthy' sound like a description for mainstream press, you are right. And that is precisely the reason why big time media is still a big force on the Net.

But do surfers really trust big media online as much as they do offline?

Take this case in point: Some months ago, Tim Fries, a 22-year-old American, reproduced a CNN page and uploaded a fake article with the headline 'Singer Britney Spears Killed in Car Accident.'

A trick made the URL appear to be CNN's and when people clicked on the 'email this' link, CNN.com inadvertently counted it, making the false story CNN's most popular! In cases like this, the lay surfer has no clue to suspect the information when the URL and page design are the same as CNN's.

Similar cases keep occurring every now and then and reduce the credibility of online information dramatically.

The problem is acute enough for a bunch of researchers at Stanford University to conduct a study on the Web's credibility.

The study shows how certain elements of Web sites affect our perception of credibility. The researchers evaluated several factors to see whether these added to or detracted from users' notions of a site's reliability. Among other findings, it was revealed that people attributed greater credibility to the top level domain name '.org'. Probably that's why the researchers have named their site webcredibility.org.

In a presentation called 'What variables affect Web credibility', the team explains that advertisements on a page alter people's perception of credibility significantly. While low reputation ads decrease trustworthiness, ads from highly reputed organisations increase it. Then typos on a page adversely affect its reliability perception. Also, if a site is commercial in nature, users seem more inclined to believe what it says.

Articles without proper attribution appear dubious, while bylines induce credibility. If the article carries a formal photograph of the author, people tend to place more faith in its legitimacy. The team found that, "In order of impact, the five types of elements that increased credibility perceptions were real-world feel, ease of use, expertise, trustworthiness and tailoring. The two types of elements that hurt credibility were commercial implications and amateurism."

"The online version of newspapers are perceived at almost the same level of credibility as the print version, though perhaps a bit lower overall since online information still strikes people as being ephemeral," claims B J Fogg from the Stanford Web credibility research team.

Surveys have indicated that many people tend to rely on online versions of traditional newspapers. However, with newspapers themselves relying increasingly on the Web as a source for stories and material, the information on their sites could sometimes be inaccurate, leading to increasing doubts in the mind of the surfer. Here's a case in point…

A Reuters report recently claimed that an American woman got stuck after a high-pressure vacuum flush sealed her to the toilet seat of a transatlantic airliner. That was later discovered to be untrue. Fogg attributes mistakes in prominent news sources to "the faster pace of the online publishing" that may "compel journalists to be a bit sloppier in their work". However, he does feel that "most journalists want to do quality work and draw on reliable sources wherever they can find them".

Fogg suggests that surfers may not be using the right criteria in evaluating information quality on the Web: "Generally, I believe people rely too heavily on surface features of Web sites -- the colours, the images, and the design -- and don't give the content enough scrutiny. But this is also how people process most things in life, especially what they see on TV."

Making the distinction between Web credibility and information quality, Fogg maintains that since credibility "exists only in the mind", users are influenced by what they perceive to be trustworthy. On the other hand, the actual determinants of information quality include "accurate content, up to date information, reliable Web site interactions, etc".

Dr Bob Swisher of the University of Oklahoma, in a document titled 'Accessing Quality on the Internet', drew up a list of questions that users could ask themselves in order to evaluate suspect content:

• Are criteria for inclusion of information stated?
• What is the authority of the author or creator?
• What is the authority of the institutional affiliation?
• Is the treatment neutral or biased, advocacy, promotional, public relations?
• What is the stability of the information?
• Is the format appropriate?
• What are the software / hardware requirements?

To help users develop the right assessment techniques, Internet Detective, an interactive online tutorial, deals with issues of information quality on the Net and focuses on practical steps to critically evaluate the quality of a site: "As things stand, the Internet has no system of quality control - all of human life is there - the good, the bad and the ugly: academic journals sit next to comics; presidential speeches next to idle gossip; today's news next to yesterday's news ... It is often left up to you, the end user, to distinguish which is which".

In her paper on 'Evaluating Quality on the Net', Hope N Tillman suggests comparing Internet resources to their competition, no matter what the format. Also, the interactive capabilities of the Internet can be exploited: "If you see shortcomings, speak up!" She also looks at the authority of authors, currency of content and the last update.

Even in the light of all the above factors, it is sometimes difficult to determine the veracity of information. As was in the CNN hoax that Tim Fries engineered.

However, there are a few sites devoted to exploding myths and bringing false information to light. Two such are snopes.com and Urban Legend Zeitgeist. If you doubt the authenticity of any information, it's a good idea to check such sites to see if they have anything indicating their falsehood.

Talking of urban legends, look at the exploding community of people who write online diaries or Web logs or blogs. Bloggers love to quote from each other's pages. A falsehood put up by one blogger is likely to spread to several blogs. And if that falsehood spreads to enough pages, it becomes difficult to verify the actual truth. It is yet another downside of the power of easy replication and publication on the Internet.

Even 'plain truth' becomes a problem at times when it is an 'old truth'.

People begin individual publishing to the Web with great enthusiasm. Like is the case in bloggerland. But when the enthusiasm wears off many people just leave behind their old projects. The outdated links and data on these pages lead to further confusion and loss of credibility.

The problem is subtle but large. And 'information activism' has taken roots to weed out static pages that mislead. "It's okay for people to get tired of a project and move on. It's NOT okay to leave the detritus hanging around for the rest of humanity to wade through," the activists point out.

Wendy Russ started this movement of information activism. She was researching for a book on the Internet and had to find the best online resources on several topics. Wading through the pool of information over the years, she and other researchers noticed that as the amount of Web pages increases enormously, stale information continuously gets in the way.

The movement launched a campaign asking Web directories to focus on quality instead of quantity. "One of our main goals is to convince Web directories such as Yahoo, Lycos, the Mining Company and so on that we don't want a huge amount of information. We want quality information. The time for a billion links is past…Web directories should stop linking to outdated information."

To Webmasters they say, "Publish what you want, useful or frivolous, but take care of it once you've created it. Keep it up-to-date; make sure it's still doing what you wanted it to do. And if it's not, get rid of it."

Clearing the Web of dead information solves only part of the problem. The quality and accuracy of current information also needs to be assessed. And assessed properly.

There is a saying among Web site producers: "Success can be your biggest failure". If we are not careful, the explosion of information on the Internet might just kill its credibility.