Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.03625694 = product of:
  0.07251388 = sum of:
    0.07251388 = product of:
      0.14502776 = sum of:
        0.14502776 = weight(_text_:assessment in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14502776 = score(doc=201,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.2801951 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            0.51759565 = fieldWeight in 201, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=201)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article reviews selected literature related to the credibility of information, including (1) the general markers of credibility, and how different source, message and receiver characteristics affect people's perceptions of information; (2) the impact of information medium on the assessment of credibility; and (3) the assessment of credibility in the context of information presented on the Internet. The objective of the literature review is to synthesize the current state of knowledge in this area, develop new ways to think about how people interact with information presented via the Internet, and suggest next steps for research and practical applications. The review examines empirical evidence, key reviews, and descriptive material related to credibility in general, and in terms of on-line media. A general discussion of credibility and persuasion and a description of recent work on the credibility and persuasiveness of computer-based applications is presented. Finally, the article synthesizes what we have learned from various fields, and proposes a model as a framework for much-needed future research in this area

0.021364605 = product of:
  0.04272921 = sum of:
    0.04272921 = product of:
      0.08545842 = sum of:
        0.08545842 = weight(_text_:assessment in 4477) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08545842 = score(doc=4477,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2801951 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            0.30499613 = fieldWeight in 4477, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4477)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This exploratory study contributes to research on relevance assessment by specifying criteria that are used in the judgment of information quality and credibility in Internet discussion forums. To this end, 4,739 messages posted to 160 Finnish discussion threads were analyzed. Of the messages, 20.5% contained explicit judgments of the quality of information and credibility in other messages. In the judgments, the forum participants employed both positive criteria such as validity of information and negative criteria such as dishonesty in argumentation. In the evaluation of the quality of the message's information content, the most frequently used criteria pertained to the usefulness, correctness, and specificity of information. In the judgment of information credibility, the main criteria included the reputation, expertise, and honesty of the author of the message. Since Internet discussion forums tend to emphasize the role of disputational discourse questioning rather than accepting the views presented by others, mainly negative criteria were used in the judgments. The generality of our claims is limited because we chose forums that focused on sensitive and value-laden topics; future work could explore credibility and quality judgment in other forums and forumlike venues such as question and answer sites as well as exploring how quality and credibility judgments interact with other aspects of forum use.

0.0137520125 = product of:
  0.027504025 = sum of:
    0.027504025 = product of:
      0.05500805 = sum of:
        0.05500805 = weight(_text_:22 in 2013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05500805 = score(doc=2013,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2013, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2013)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Gemeinsam mit den Repräsentanten der großen deutschen und internationalen Wissenschaftsorganisationen hat Prof. Peter Gruss, der Präsident der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, am 22. Oktober die folgende »Berliner Erklärung über offenen Zugang zu wissenschaftlichem Wissen« (Berlin Declaration an Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities) unterzeichnet. Vorausgegangen war eine dreitägige Konferenz in Berlin. Dabei diskutierten international führende Experten über neue Zugangsmöglichkeiten zu wissenschaftlichem Wissen und kulturellem Erbe durch das Internet.

0.012033011 = product of:
  0.024066022 = sum of:
    0.024066022 = product of:
      0.048132043 = sum of:
        0.048132043 = weight(_text_:22 in 2021) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048132043 = score(doc=2021,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2021, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2021)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Gemeinsam mit den Repräsentanten der großen deutschen und internationalen Wissenschaftsorganisationen hat Prof. Peter Gruss, der Präsident der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, am Mittwoch, den 22. Oktober, die "Berliner Erklärung über offenen Zugang zu wissenschaftlichem Wissen" (Berlin Declaration an Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities) unterzeichnet. Vorausgegangen war eine dreitägige Konferenz im Berlin-Dahlemer Harnack-Haus der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft. Dabei diskutierten international führende Experten über neue Zugangsmöglichkeiten zu wissenschaftlichem Wissen und kulturellem Erbe durch das Internet.

0.009724141 = product of:
  0.019448282 = sum of:
    0.019448282 = product of:
      0.038896564 = sum of:
        0.038896564 = weight(_text_:22 in 3012) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038896564 = score(doc=3012,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            0.21886435 = fieldWeight in 3012, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3012)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 7.2009 11:23:22

0.007293106 = product of:
  0.014586212 = sum of:
    0.014586212 = product of:
      0.029172424 = sum of:
        0.029172424 = weight(_text_:22 in 3080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029172424 = score(doc=3080,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            0.16414827 = fieldWeight in 3080, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3080)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

"Es gibt Daten, Informationen und Fakten. Wenn man mir eine Zahlenreihe vorsetzt, dann handelt es sich um Daten: unterscheidbare Einheiten, im Fachjargon: Items. Wenn man mir sagt, dass diese Items stündliche Temperaturangaben der Aare im Berner Marzilibad bedeuten, dann verfüge ich über Information - über interpretierte Daten. Wenn man mir sagt, dies seien die gemessenen Aaretemperaturen am 22. August 2016 im Marzili, dann ist das ein Faktum: empirisch geprüfte interpretierte Daten. Dieser Dreischritt - Unterscheiden, Interpretieren, Prüfen - bildet quasi das Bindemittel des Faktischen, «the matter of fact». Wir alle führen den Dreischritt ständig aus und gelangen so zu einem relativ verlässlichen Wissen und Urteilsvermögen betreffend die Dinge des Alltags. Aber wie schon die Kurzcharakterisierung durchblicken lässt, bilden Fakten nicht den Felsengrund der Realität. Sie sind kritikanfällig, sowohl von der Interpretation wie auch von der Prüfung her gesehen. Um bei unserem Beispiel zu bleiben: Es kann durchaus sein, dass man uns zwei unterschiedliche «faktische» Temperaturverläufe der Aare am 22. August 2016 vorsetzt.

0.0060165054 = product of:
  0.012033011 = sum of:
    0.012033011 = product of:
      0.024066022 = sum of:
        0.024066022 = weight(_text_:22 in 1985) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024066022 = score(doc=1985,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 1985, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1985)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Frankfurter Rundschau. Nr.289 vom 11.12.2003, S.22