Search (36 results, page 1 of 2)

0.027035978 = product of:
  0.10814391 = sum of:
    0.07328778 = weight(_text_:case in 3396) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07328778 = score(doc=3396,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.420663 = fieldWeight in 3396, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3396)
    0.034856133 = weight(_text_:studies in 3396) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034856133 = score(doc=3396,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.22043361 = fieldWeight in 3396, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3396)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

We are talking about 'information' in many different contexts: not only in our ordinary language, but also in the highly specialized discourses of the theory of communication, computer science, physics, biology, cultural studies, and so forth. As we do so, are we using the same concept each and every time? Is there one and only one concept of information connecting all these different usages of one word (and its linguistic 'relatives' in languages other than English)? This question has accompanied the 'information talk' for many years and recently has lead to the so-called 'Capurro trilemma'. According to this trilemma, throughout those various contexts the words we use either (A) have the same meaning or (B) completely different meanings or (C) different meanings which nevertheless are somehow connected. As the unity of meaning is a minimal condition for the identity of a concept, in case (A) there is only one concept of information (univocity); in case (B) we deal with several concepts of information (equivocation); in case (C) it is the question of just precisely how the different concepts are interconnected. The authors describing the dilemma suggest Wittgensteinian family resemblance and Aristotelian analogy, but they do not seem to be satisfied by their solutions. Therefore, according to them, we are facing a real trilemma whose single horns are equally unattractive.

0.024071492 = product of:
  0.09628597 = sum of:
    0.06971227 = weight(_text_:studies in 5526) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06971227 = score(doc=5526,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.44086722 = fieldWeight in 5526, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5526)
    0.0265737 = product of:
      0.0531474 = sum of:
        0.0531474 = weight(_text_:area in 5526) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0531474 = score(doc=5526,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1952553 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.27219442 = fieldWeight in 5526, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5526)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

This review paper examines some of the main theoretical influences prompting a reappreciation of the importance of the body and how it may be conceived as relevant to information studies (IS). It starts by placing this increased recognition of the body in its historical and social context. It then examines, in turn, how the body is viewed in the phenomenology of Merleau-Ponty; practice theory; embodied cognition; and sensory studies. Existing and potential influences in information studies are discussed. Most work that reexamines the place of the body reflects the influence of Merleau-Ponty, but he has had relatively little direct impact on IS. Practice theory does deal with the body, and this has already been picked up quite strongly in IS. Work in the area of embodied cognition has the potential to fundamentally change our view of the relation of the mind and the body, and information as an aspect of that relation. Sensory studies offers a powerful framework for examining the cultural shaping of the senses as a source of information. The implications of the bodily turn for methodology are briefly discussed.

0.01567913 = product of:
  0.06271652 = sum of:
    0.049294014 = weight(_text_:studies in 1344) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049294014 = score(doc=1344,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.3117402 = fieldWeight in 1344, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1344)
    0.013422508 = product of:
      0.026845016 = sum of:
        0.026845016 = weight(_text_:22 in 1344) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026845016 = score(doc=1344,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1344, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1344)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

This review introduces a comprehensive model of the cognitive process and mechanisms of individual sensemaking to provide a theoretical basis for: - empirical studies that improve our understanding of the cognitive process and mechanisms of sensemaking and integration of results of such studies; - education in critical thinking and sensemaking skills; - the design of sensemaking assistant tools that support and guide users. The paper reviews and extends existing sensemaking models with ideas from learning and cognition. It reviews literature on sensemaking models in human-computer interaction (HCI), cognitive system engineering, organizational communication, and library and information sciences (LIS), learning theories, cognitive psychology, and task-based information seeking. The model resulting from this synthesis moves to a stronger basis for explaining sensemaking behaviors and conceptual changes. The model illustrates the iterative processes of sensemaking, extends existing models that focus on activities by integrating cognitive mechanisms and the creation of instantiated structure elements of knowledge, and different types of conceptual change to show a complete picture of the cognitive processes of sensemaking. The processes and cognitive mechanisms identified provide better foundations for knowledge creation, organization, and sharing practices and a stronger basis for design of sensemaking assistant systems and tools.

Date

22. 8.2014 16:55:39

0.011836918 = product of:
  0.047347672 = sum of:
    0.029919608 = weight(_text_:case in 5523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029919608 = score(doc=5523,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.17173493 = fieldWeight in 5523, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=5523)
    0.017428067 = weight(_text_:studies in 5523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017428067 = score(doc=5523,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.110216804 = fieldWeight in 5523, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=5523)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

What follows is an editorial that makes a case against the development of an empirical research frontier in library and information science (LIS) devoted to information and the body. My goal is to offer a sober and constructive counterbalance to this Library Trends special issue that is otherwise uncritical of its proposition. In asserting that original research into embodied information may be unproductive for our field, I draw from my personal experience and reflections as well as foundational conceptions of LIS from past and contemporary luminaries. My conclusion reminds all stakeholders in this Library Trends special issue of the many fascinating and urgent research questions that remain unanswered within the conventional boundaries of LIS.
In 2003 I was a doctoral student at the Department of Information Studies at the University of California, Los Angeles, and happily learning information behavior under Marcia Bates. I enrolled in a methodology seminar offered through the Sociology Department entitled Ethnography, Ethnomethodology, and Symbolic Interactionism, taught by the late Melvin Pollner. Our class read a book-length ethnography of one sociologist's experience as the paid caretaker of a teenage girl living with severe mental and motor impairments; the study reported the sexual way the child pressed her body against her older, male assistant during their daily routine and the inexorable sexual response of his body-two haptic forms of embodied information. The aspiring sociologists and anthropologists in the course found these microsocial physical dynamics to be riveting and discussed their meaning for two hours. The next week our enlightened professor assigned an article by Lucy Suchman about the coordinated flow of information via documents in a workplace-a brilliant paper. To my surprise, my classmates were dismissive of Suchman's study. One budding sociologist remarked, "Well, the research design is solid, but it's all about these [End Page 585] documents. I mean . who really cares?" This flippant criticism left me speechless, while everyone else in the class laughed in agreement (excepting the magnanimous Dr. Pollner).

0.01045684 = product of:
  0.08365472 = sum of:
    0.08365472 = weight(_text_:studies in 1316) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08365472 = score(doc=1316,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.52904063 = fieldWeight in 1316, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1316)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Series

Studies in history and philosophy of science ; 34

0.01045684 = product of:
  0.08365472 = sum of:
    0.08365472 = weight(_text_:studies in 1321) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08365472 = score(doc=1321,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.52904063 = fieldWeight in 1321, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1321)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Series

Studies in history and philosophy of science ; 34

0.009160972 = product of:
  0.07328778 = sum of:
    0.07328778 = weight(_text_:case in 1211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07328778 = score(doc=1211,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.420663 = fieldWeight in 1211, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1211)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

The study of interhuman communication requires a more complex framework than Claude E. Shannon's (1948) mathematical theory of communication because "information" is defined in the latter case as meaningless uncertainty. Assuming that meaning cannot be communicated, we extend Shannon's theory by defining mutual redundancy as a positional counterpart of the relational communication of information. Mutual redundancy indicates the surplus of meanings that can be provided to the exchanges in reflexive communications. The information is redundant because it is based on "pure sets" (i.e., without subtraction of mutual information in the overlaps). We show that in the three-dimensional case (e.g., of a triple helix of university-industry-government relations), mutual redundancy is equal to mutual information (Rxyz = Txyz); but when the dimensionality is even, the sign is different. We generalize to the measurement in N dimensions and proceed to the interpretation. Using Niklas Luhmann's (1984-1995) social systems theory and/or Anthony Giddens's (1979, 1984) structuration theory, mutual redundancy can be provided with an interpretation in the sociological case: Different meaning-processing structures code and decode with other algorithms. A surplus of ("absent") options can then be generated that add to the redundancy. Luhmann's "functional (sub)systems" of expectations or Giddens's "rule-resource sets" are positioned mutually, but coupled operationally in events or "instantiated" in actions. Shannon-type information is generated by the mediation, but the "structures" are (re-)positioned toward one another as sets of (potentially counterfactual) expectations. The structural differences among the coding and decoding algorithms provide a source of additional options in reflexive and anticipatory communications.

0.008714033 = product of:
  0.06971227 = sum of:
    0.06971227 = weight(_text_:studies in 1295) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06971227 = score(doc=1295,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.44086722 = fieldWeight in 1295, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1295)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Series

Studies in history and philosophy of science ; 34

0.008714033 = product of:
  0.06971227 = sum of:
    0.06971227 = weight(_text_:studies in 1313) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06971227 = score(doc=1313,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.44086722 = fieldWeight in 1313, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1313)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Series

Studies in history and philosophy of science ; 34

0.008714033 = product of:
  0.06971227 = sum of:
    0.06971227 = weight(_text_:studies in 1315) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06971227 = score(doc=1315,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.44086722 = fieldWeight in 1315, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1315)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Series

Studies in history and philosophy of science ; 34

0.008626453 = product of:
  0.06901162 = sum of:
    0.06901162 = weight(_text_:studies in 5534) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06901162 = score(doc=5534,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.43643627 = fieldWeight in 5534, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5534)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

This introduction to Luciano Floridi's philosophy of information (PI) provides a short overview of Floridi's work and its reception by the library and information studies (LIS) community, brief definitions of some important PI concepts, and illustrations of Floridi's three suggested applications of PI to library and information studies. It suggests that LIS may just be as important to PI as PI is to LIS in terms of deepening our mutual understanding of information ontologies, the dynamics of informational domains, and the variety of evolving relationships among information organisms and information objects.

0.008626453 = product of:
  0.06901162 = sum of:
    0.06901162 = weight(_text_:studies in 893) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06901162 = score(doc=893,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.43643627 = fieldWeight in 893, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=893)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

It is suggested that, in addition to data, information and knowledge, the information sciences should focus on understanding, understood as a higher-order knowledge, with coherent and explanatory potential. The limited ways in which understanding has been addressed in the design of information systems, in studies of information behaviour, in formulations of information literacy and in impact studies are briefly reviewed, and future prospects considered. The paper is an extended version of a keynote presentation given at the i3 conference in June 2015.

0.0074047255 = product of:
  0.059237804 = sum of:
    0.059237804 = weight(_text_:case in 5539) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059237804 = score(doc=5539,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.34001783 = fieldWeight in 5539, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5539)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

0.0074047255 = product of:
  0.059237804 = sum of:
    0.059237804 = weight(_text_:case in 5541) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059237804 = score(doc=5541,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.34001783 = fieldWeight in 5541, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5541)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

0.0073941024 = product of:
  0.05915282 = sum of:
    0.05915282 = weight(_text_:studies in 3101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05915282 = score(doc=3101,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.37408823 = fieldWeight in 3101, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3101)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Charles S. Peirce had a theory of information largely ignored by contemporary information theorists. This paper gives an outline of this theory and confronts it with information theories since 1949, Shannon and Weaver's syntactic theory of information, Carnap and Bar-Hillel's logico-semantic theory, and Dretske's cognitive-pragmatic theory of information. In contrast to these more recent theories, Peirce's theory of information is not based on a calculus of probabilities but on one of logical quantities. Furthermore, it does not only study information as growth of knowledge from actual texts or utterances but also as knowledge accumulated in symbols in the course of their history. Peirce takes all three dimensions of semiotics into account without reducing information to any of them: syntax, since it calculates information from the combination of subject and predicate terms of propositions; semantics, since it studies the denotation and signification of symbols; and pragmatics insofar as it studies processes of knowledge acquisition. The specifically semiotic aspect of Peirce's information theory consists in its study of the different effects of icons, indices, and symbols on the growth of words, ideas, and knowledge.

0.0063469075 = product of:
  0.05077526 = sum of:
    0.05077526 = weight(_text_:case in 4004) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05077526 = score(doc=4004,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.29144385 = fieldWeight in 4004, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4004)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

The communication of meaning as distinct from (Shannon-type) information is central to Luhmann's social systems theory and Giddens' structuration theory of action. These theories share an emphasis on reflexivity, but focus on meaning along a divide between interhuman communication and intentful action as two different systems of reference. Recombining these two theories into a theory about the structuration of expectations, interactions, organization, and self-organization of intentional communications can be simulated based on algorithms from the computation of anticipatory systems. The self-organizing and organizing layers remain rooted in the double contingency of the human encounter, which provides the variation. Organization and self-organization of communication are reflexive upon and therefore reconstructive of each other. Using mutual information in three dimensions, the imprint of meaning processing in the modeling system on the historical organization of uncertainty in the modeled system can be measured. This is shown empirically in the case of intellectual organization as "structurating" structure in the textual domain of scientific articles.

0.0052890894 = product of:
  0.042312715 = sum of:
    0.042312715 = weight(_text_:case in 1761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042312715 = score(doc=1761,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.24286987 = fieldWeight in 1761, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1761)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper aims to respond to Budd's discussion of meaning, truth and information by exploring the ontological framework prescribed by critical realism. Budd's thesis that information must be defined within the context of meaning and truth is challenged and the ontological priority of information is argued. Design/methodology/approach - Following a critique of Budd's conclusions, a "regional ontology" of information is discussed. The practical adequacy of this theory is demonstrated by applying it to information-seeking and meaning-making, as described by Dervin's Sense-Making Methodology (SMM). Finally, a case study is provided to illustrate the re-conceptualization and implications in future research applications. Findings - Information is a "thing" of ontological significance and which possesses truth and meaning as properties. Information may present as uninforming, incomprehensible, deceptive, nonsensical or sensical, depending on how the properties truth and meaning are expressed. Research limitations/implications - The main implication arising from this paper is that a definition of information is provided which permits application to situations of conflict or dissonance concerning information use. Abductive reasoning facilitates application of SMM to historically produced documents. Originality/value - The novelty of this paper lies in the analysis of information, truth and meaning according to a realist, emergentist ontology, and in the consequent application of Dervin's SMM to documents by abductive reasoning.

0.00522842 = product of:
  0.04182736 = sum of:
    0.04182736 = weight(_text_:studies in 5537) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04182736 = score(doc=5537,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.26452032 = fieldWeight in 5537, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5537)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

This paper discusses differing perspectives relevant to library and information studies (LIS) regarding the philosophy of information, primarily disparate accounts of ontology. The perspectives include, but are not limited to, those of Luciano Floridi, Raphael Capurro, Michael Eldred, applied ontologists like Pierre Grenon and Barry Smith, Fred Fonseca, and Bernd Frohmann. Slavoj Zizek's parallax ontology is used as a leitmotif and theoretical frame to provide a comprehensive and nuanced understanding of differing standpoints on ontological issues within LIS and the philosophy of information. Parallax ontology is presented not as a replacement for any particular perspective but rather as a means to utilize the differing points of view. The antinomies within and between these perspectives are not overcome through some kind of synthesis but instead disclose the fundamentally irreconcilable nature of the topic of ontology itself, particularly within LIS and the philosophy of information. The paper concludes with an assessment of the importance of this type of research, and the topics of ontology and the philosophy of information in particular.

0.0047455733 = product of:
  0.037964586 = sum of:
    0.037964586 = product of:
      0.07592917 = sum of:
        0.07592917 = weight(_text_:22 in 2810) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07592917 = score(doc=2810,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 2810, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2810)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Date

22. 7.2004 9:42:33
22. 4.2017 11:58:05

0.0043570166 = product of:
  0.034856133 = sum of:
    0.034856133 = weight(_text_:studies in 5462) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034856133 = score(doc=5462,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.22043361 = fieldWeight in 5462, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5462)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to treat disinformation and misinformation (intentionally deceptive and unintentionally inaccurate misleading information, respectively) as a socio-cultural technology-enabled epidemic in digital news, propagated via social media. Design/methodology/approach The proposed disinformation and misinformation triangle is a conceptual model that identifies the three minimal causal factors occurring simultaneously to facilitate the spread of the epidemic at the societal level. Findings Following the epidemiological disease triangle model, the three interacting causal factors are translated into the digital news context: the virulent pathogens are falsifications, clickbait, satirical "fakes" and other deceptive or misleading news content; the susceptible hosts are information-overloaded, time-pressed news readers lacking media literacy skills; and the conducive environments are polluted poorly regulated social media platforms that propagate and encourage the spread of various "fakes." Originality/value The three types of interventions - automation, education and regulation - are proposed as a set of holistic measures to reveal, and potentially control, predict and prevent further proliferation of the epidemic. Partial automated solutions with natural language processing, machine learning and various automated detection techniques are currently available, as exemplified here briefly. Automated solutions assist (but not replace) human judgments about whether news is truthful and credible. Information literacy efforts require further in-depth understanding of the phenomenon and interdisciplinary collaboration outside of the traditional library and information science, incorporating media studies, journalism, interpersonal psychology and communication perspectives.