02166nas a2200205   4500000000100000000000100001008004100002653002500043653002300068653002200091653001600113653002300129100001600152245008400168856005900252300001900311490000700330520160900337022001401946       2020                            d10ainformation creation10ainformation making10ainformation needs10acredibility10aepistemic distance1 aIsto Huvila00aInformation-making-related information needs and the credibility of information  uhttp://informationr.net/ir/25-4/isic2020/isic2002.html  apaper isic20020 v253 aEven if trust in the process of how information is made has been acknowledged as a key aspect of the credibility of information, there is little earlier research on how and if people use or want information on information making when doing credibility assessments. Swedish archaeology administrators were interviewed (n=10). Interview transcripts were analysed using close reading and an approach based on the constant comparative method. Information needs relating to work processes, methods and technologies, context and situation and non-needs (i.e. lack of need) of information on information making were identified similarly to two types of reputational and four types of non-reputational cues of how information was made. Experienced information needs about information making and preferences for reputational and non-reputational cues in credibility assessments were related to individuals? epistemic distance to the context where information making took place, and if the interviewees positioned themselves as insiders or outsiders in that particular context. To understand the dynamics and interaction of credibility criteria, it can be useful to look at how and what they are used to justify and what are people?s underpinning epistemic beliefs, instead of merely pointing to the differences in beliefs and enumerating situation-specific credibility criteria. People?s flexibility in switching between reputational and non-reputational cues, and positioning themselves as insiders and outsiders, could be seen as an opportunity rather than as a sign of their inferior informational competences.  a1368-1613