The notion of information quality (IQ) has been investigated extensively in recent years. Much of this research has been aimed at conceptualizing IQ and its underlying dimensions (e.g., accuracy, completeness) and at developing instruments for measuring these quality dimensions. However, less attention has been given to the measurability of IQ. The objective of this study is to explore the extent to which a set of IQ dimensions—accuracy, completeness, objectivity, and representation—lend themselves to reliable measurement. By reliable measurement, we refer to the degree to which independent assessors are able to agree when rating objects on these various dimensions. Our study reveals that multiple assessors tend to agree more on certain dimensions (e.g., accuracy) while finding it more difficult to agree on others (e.g., completeness). We argue that differences in measurability stem from properties inherent to the quality dimension (i.e., the availability of heuristics that make the assessment more tangible) as well as on assessors' reliance on these cues. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.