Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × language_ss:"e"
  • × theme_ss:"Informationsmittel"
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Okoli, C.; Mehdi, M.; Mesgari, M.; Nielsen, F.A.; Lanamäki, A.: Wikipedia in the eyes of its beholders : a systematic review of scholarly research on Wikipedia readers and readership (2014) 0.11 
    0.11490267 = product of:
  0.172354 = sum of:
    0.15215923 = weight(_text_:systematic in 1540) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15215923 = score(doc=1540,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049684696 = queryNorm
        0.5358256 = fieldWeight in 1540, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1540)
    0.02019477 = product of:
      0.04038954 = sum of:
        0.04038954 = weight(_text_:22 in 1540) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04038954 = score(doc=1540,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = 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)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Hundreds of scholarly studies have investigated various aspects of Wikipedia. Although a number of literature reviews have provided overviews of this vast body of research, none has specifically focused on the readers of Wikipedia and issues concerning its readership. In this systematic literature review, we review 99 studies to synthesize current knowledge regarding the readership of Wikipedia and provide an analysis of research methods employed. The scholarly research has found that Wikipedia is popular not only for lighter topics such as entertainment but also for more serious topics such as health and legal information. Scholars, librarians, and students are common users, and Wikipedia provides a unique opportunity for educating students in digital literacy. We conclude with a summary of key findings, implications for researchers, and implications for the Wikipedia community.
    Date
    18.11.2014 13:22:03
  2. Callahan, E.S.; Herring, S.C.: Cultural bias in Wikipedia content on famous persons (2011) 0.04 
    0.03586427 = product of:
  0.10759281 = sum of:
    0.10759281 = weight(_text_:systematic in 4764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10759281 = score(doc=4764,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049684696 = queryNorm
        0.3788859 = fieldWeight in 4764, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4764)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    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.
  3. Mesgari, M.; Okoli, C.; Mehdi, M.; Nielsen, F.A.; Lanamäki, A.: ¬"The sum of all human knowledge" : a systematic review of scholarly research on the content of Wikipedia (2015) 0.03 
    0.029886894 = product of:
  0.08966068 = sum of:
    0.08966068 = weight(_text_:systematic in 1624) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08966068 = score(doc=1624,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049684696 = queryNorm
        0.31573826 = fieldWeight in 1624, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1624)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  4. Martínez-Ávila, D.; Chaves Guimarães, J.A.; Pinho, F.A.; Fox, M.J.: ¬The representation of ethics and knowledge organization in the WoS and LISTA databases (2015) 0.03 
    0.029550051 = product of:
  0.08865015 = sum of:
    0.08865015 = sum of:
      0.048260607 = weight(_text_:indexing in 2358) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.048260607 = score(doc=2358,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049684696 = queryNorm
          0.2537542 = fieldWeight in 2358, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2358)
      0.04038954 = weight(_text_:22 in 2358) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04038954 = score(doc=2358,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049684696 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    A naïve user seeking introductory information on a topic may perceive a domain as it is shown by the search results in a database; however, inconsistencies in indexing can misrepresent the full picture of the domain by including irrelevant documents or omitting relevant ones, sometimes inexplicably. A bibliometric analysis was conducted on the domain of ethics in knowledge organization in the World of Science (WoS) and Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts (LISTA) databases to discern how it is being presented by search results in those databases and to attempt to determine why inconsistencies occurred.
    Date
    17. 2.2018 16:50:22
  5. Cho, H.; Chen, M.-H.; Chung, S.: Testing an integrative theoretical model of knowledge-sharing behavior in the context of Wikipedia (2010) 0.01 
    0.0067315903 = product of:
  0.02019477 = sum of:
    0.02019477 = product of:
      0.04038954 = sum of:
        0.04038954 = weight(_text_:22 in 3460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04038954 = score(doc=3460,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Date
    1. 6.2010 10:13:22

Authors

Themes