Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.044512264 = product of:
  0.08902453 = sum of:
    0.08902453 = product of:
      0.17804906 = sum of:
        0.17804906 = weight(_text_:encyclopedia in 3633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17804906 = score(doc=3633,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.270842 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.321862 = idf(docFreq=586, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05089233 = queryNorm
            0.6573909 = fieldWeight in 3633, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              5.321862 = idf(docFreq=586, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3633)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to discuss the second edition of the Encyclopaedia Judaica (2007) within its broader historical context of the production of encyclopedias in the twentieth and the twenty-first centuries. The paper contrasts the 2007 edition of the Encyclopaedia Judaica to the Jewish Encyclopedia published between 1901 and 1905, and to the first edition of the Encyclopaedia Judaica published in 1972; then contrasts the 2007 edition of the Encyclopaedia Judaica to Wikipedia and to other projects of online encyclopedias. Design/methodology/approach - The paper provides a personal reflective review of the sources in question. Findings - That Encyclopaedia Judaica in its latest edition does not adequately replace the original first edition in terms of depth of scholarly work. It is considered that the model offered by Wikipedia could work well for the Encyclopaedia Judaica, allowing it to retain the core of the expert knowledge, and at the same time channel the energy of volunteer editors which has made Wikipedia such a success. Practical implications - The paper is of interest to those with an interest in encyclopedia design or Jewish studies. Originality/value - This paper provides a unique reflection on the latest edition of the encyclopedia and considers future models for its publication based on traditional and non-traditional methods.

Object

Encyclopedia Judaica

0.03378243 = product of:
  0.06756486 = sum of:
    0.06756486 = product of:
      0.13512972 = sum of:
        0.13512972 = weight(_text_:encyclopedia in 391) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13512972 = score(doc=391,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.270842 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.321862 = idf(docFreq=586, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05089233 = queryNorm
            0.49892458 = fieldWeight in 391, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.321862 = idf(docFreq=586, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=391)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Wikipedia is frequently viewed as an inclusive medium. But inclusivity within this online encyclopedia is not a simple matter of just allowing anyone to contribute. In its quest for legitimacy as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia relies on outsiders to judge claims championed by rival editors. In choosing these experts, Wikipedians define the boundaries of acceptable comment on any given subject. Inclusivity then becomes a matter of how the boundaries of expertise are drawn. In this article I examine the nature of these boundaries and the implications they have for inclusivity and credibility as revealed through the talk pages produced and sources used by a particular subset of Wikipedia's creators-those involved in writing articles on the topic of Philippine history.

0.023887785 = product of:
  0.04777557 = sum of:
    0.04777557 = product of:
      0.09555114 = sum of:
        0.09555114 = weight(_text_:encyclopedia in 4764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09555114 = score(doc=4764,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.270842 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.321862 = idf(docFreq=586, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05089233 = queryNorm
            0.35279295 = fieldWeight in 4764, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.321862 = idf(docFreq=586, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4764)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Wikipedia advocates a strict "neutral point of view" (NPOV) policy. However, although originally a U.S-based, English-language phenomenon, the online, user-created encyclopedia now has versions in many languages. This study examines the extent to which content and perspectives vary across cultures by comparing articles about famous persons in the Polish and English editions of Wikipedia. The results of quantitative and qualitative content analyses reveal systematic differences related to the different cultures, histories, and values of Poland and the United States; at the same time, a U.S./English-language advantage is evident throughout. In conclusion, the implications of these findings for the quality and objectivity of Wikipedia as a global repository of knowledge are discussed, and recommendations are advanced for Wikipedia end users and content developers.

0.01990649 = product of:
  0.03981298 = sum of:
    0.03981298 = product of:
      0.07962596 = sum of:
        0.07962596 = weight(_text_:encyclopedia in 2846) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07962596 = score(doc=2846,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.270842 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.321862 = idf(docFreq=586, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05089233 = queryNorm
            0.29399413 = fieldWeight in 2846, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.321862 = idf(docFreq=586, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2846)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Online collaborative projects have been utilized in a variety of ways over the past decade, such as bringing people together to build open source software or developing the world's largest free encyclopedia. Personal communication networks as a feature do not exist in all collaborative projects. It is currently unclear if a designer's decision to include a personal communication network in a collaborative project's structure affects outcome quality. In this study, I investigated Wikipedia's personal communication network and analyzed which Wikipedia editors are utilizing it and how they are connected to outcome quality. Evidence suggests that people who utilize these networks are more experienced in editing high quality articles and are more integrated in the community. Additionally, these individuals utilize the personal communication network for coordinating and perhaps mentoring editors who edit lower quality articles. The value of these networks is demonstrated by the characteristics of the users who use them. These findings indicate that designers of online collaborative projects can help improve the quality of outcomes in these projects by deciding to implement a personal communication network in their communities.

0.010342812 = product of:
  0.020685624 = sum of:
    0.020685624 = product of:
      0.04137125 = sum of:
        0.04137125 = weight(_text_:22 in 3460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04137125 = score(doc=3460,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17821628 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05089233 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3460, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3460)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

1. 6.2010 10:13:22

0.010342812 = product of:
  0.020685624 = sum of:
    0.020685624 = product of:
      0.04137125 = sum of:
        0.04137125 = weight(_text_:22 in 1540) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04137125 = score(doc=1540,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17821628 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05089233 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1540, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1540)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

18.11.2014 13:22:03

0.010342812 = product of:
  0.020685624 = sum of:
    0.020685624 = product of:
      0.04137125 = sum of:
        0.04137125 = weight(_text_:22 in 2358) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04137125 = score(doc=2358,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17821628 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05089233 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2358, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2358)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

17. 2.2018 16:50:22