Search (67 results, page 1 of 4)

0.1346333 = product of:
  0.35902214 = sum of:
    0.05128888 = product of:
      0.15386663 = sum of:
        0.15386663 = weight(_text_:3a in 5895) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15386663 = score(doc=5895,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.32853028 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03875087 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 5895, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5895)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.15386663 = weight(_text_:2f in 5895) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15386663 = score(doc=5895,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32853028 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 5895, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5895)
    0.15386663 = weight(_text_:2f in 5895) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15386663 = score(doc=5895,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32853028 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 5895, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5895)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Source

Politische Meinung. 381(2001) Nr.1, S.65-74 [https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dgfe.de%2Ffileadmin%2FOrdnerRedakteure%2FSektionen%2FSek02_AEW%2FKWF%2FPublikationen_Reihe_1989-2003%2FBand_17%2FBd_17_1994_355-406_A.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2KcbRsHy5UQ9QRIUyuOLNi]

0.0290335 = product of:
  0.116134 = sum of:
    0.06400454 = weight(_text_:hochschule in 4083) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06400454 = score(doc=4083,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23689921 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.27017626 = fieldWeight in 4083, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4083)
    0.052129462 = product of:
      0.104258925 = sum of:
        0.104258925 = weight(_text_:aufsatzsammlung in 4083) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.104258925 = score(doc=4083,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.25424787 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5610886 = idf(docFreq=169, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03875087 = queryNorm
            0.41006804 = fieldWeight in 4083, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              6.5610886 = idf(docFreq=169, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4083)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Spätestens seit dem Erfolg der Online-Enzyklopädie Wikipedia haben sich Wikis als moderne und effektive Möglichkeit etabliert, Wissen und Informationen zu konstruieren, zu organisieren und zu teilen. Wikis werden eingesetzt in Schule und Hochschule, in Betrieben, Vereinen und anderen Organisationen, zum Erstellen von Webseiten oder als persönlicher Ideenmanager. Das Buch Konstruktion und Kommunikation von Wissen mit Wikis nähert sich dem Thema aus theoretischer und konzeptioneller Sicht und leitet konkrete Implikationen für die Praxis ab. In einem ersten Teil werden das Wiki-Prinzip unter funktionalen, psychosozialen und technischen Gesichtspunkten vorgestellt, mögliche Schwierigkeiten und Lösungen aufgezeigt und unterschiedliche Anwendungsmöglichkeiten beschrieben. Das Buch gibt einen Überblick über psychologische und systemische Theorien, die die Konstruktion und Kommunikation von Wissen mit Wikis beschreiben und erklären können. Eingegangen wird auf motivationale und soziale Prozesse, die für die Beteilung an Wikis relevant sind. In einem zweiten Teil des Buches werden Projekte aus der Praxis vorgestellt. Das Buch wendet sich an Praktiker, die sich über theoretische und konzeptuelle Grundlagen der Konstruktion und Kommunikation von Wissen mit Wikis informieren möchten. Es gibt konkrete Hinweise und Tipps für den effektiven Einsatz von Wikis in unterschiedlichen Kontexten. Der Inhalt wird mit zahlreichen Beispielen aus der Praxis und Abbildungen aufgelockert und verzichtet auf die Beschreibung technischer Details.

RSWK

Wiki / Wissensmanagement / Aufsatzsammlung

Subject

Wiki / Wissensmanagement / Aufsatzsammlung

0.016290458 = product of:
  0.13032366 = sum of:
    0.13032366 = product of:
      0.26064733 = sum of:
        0.26064733 = weight(_text_:aufsatzsammlung in 4408) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.26064733 = score(doc=4408,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.25424787 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5610886 = idf(docFreq=169, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03875087 = queryNorm
            1.0251701 = fieldWeight in 4408, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              6.5610886 = idf(docFreq=169, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4408)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

RSWK

Informationstheorie / Aufsatzsammlung

Subject

Informationstheorie / Aufsatzsammlung

0.016001135 = product of:
  0.12800908 = sum of:
    0.12800908 = weight(_text_:hochschule in 3709) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12800908 = score(doc=3709,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23689921 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.5403525 = fieldWeight in 3709, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3709)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Imprint

Hamburg : Hochschule für Angewandte Wissenschaften, FB Bibliothek und Information

0.016001135 = product of:
  0.12800908 = sum of:
    0.12800908 = weight(_text_:hochschule in 3711) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12800908 = score(doc=3711,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23689921 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.5403525 = fieldWeight in 3711, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3711)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Imprint

Hamburg : Hochschule für Angewandte Wissenschaften, FB Bibliothek und Information

0.012000851 = product of:
  0.09600681 = sum of:
    0.09600681 = weight(_text_:hochschule in 3268) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09600681 = score(doc=3268,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23689921 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.40526438 = fieldWeight in 3268, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3268)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Imprint

Chur : Hochschule für Technik und Wirtschaft

0.009385394 = product of:
  0.07508315 = sum of:
    0.07508315 = weight(_text_:supported in 4736) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07508315 = score(doc=4736,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22949564 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.9223356 = idf(docFreq=321, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.3271659 = fieldWeight in 4736, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.9223356 = idf(docFreq=321, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4736)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Purpose - To establish that, in the opinion of the author, there is a need for an information literacy skill set for citizens of the modern information society, and that the role of library and information professionals may have to evolve, from intermediaries to facilitators and trainers. Design/methodology/approach - An opinion piece based on the author's experiences in digital library research, as a citizen of an information society and as a worker in the knowledge economy. Findings - That citizens of information societies have direct access to a bewildering range of digital information resources. Librarians and information professionals face less demand for their traditional role as intermediaries. Information literacy is defined and described as a vital skill set for citizens of information societies. It is suggested that librarians and information professionals are needed to pass on these skills to citizens at all levels of society for economic, social and personal empowerment. Research limitations/implications - The paper reflects the perspective of the author - it is not supported by quantitative data (notoriously difficult to collect on information literacy). Practical implications - Provides suggestions on how the library and information profession can retain their relevance to society in the networked age. Originality/value - This is the particular viewpoint of the author, with a diverse range of examples cited to back up the thrust of the paper. It describes how information literacy is required to interact effectively with the digital environment on an emotional as well as an intellectual level.

0.009385394 = product of:
  0.07508315 = sum of:
    0.07508315 = weight(_text_:supported in 1896) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07508315 = score(doc=1896,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22949564 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.9223356 = idf(docFreq=321, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.3271659 = fieldWeight in 1896, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.9223356 = idf(docFreq=321, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1896)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to understand the information phenomenon through the means of informational practice - the way of acting that gives identity to a group - in a social field and knowledge domain. Design/methodology/approach - By relating Pierre Bourdieu's sociology of culture to the domain analysis approach of Birger Hjørland, the intention was to achieve a comprehensive interpretation of the structure which generates the discourse communities and, also, of the social structure from which they are derived. All of these form the conditions for understanding the efforts, objectives and interests of the actors in the social field that causes them to develop determined informational practices. The field of architecture was elected for analysis. Findings - The conclusions show that both the products and subjects of a domain of knowledge, inserted in social fields, are expressions of their informational practice. Research limitations/implications - The authors believe the theoretical model based on Bourdieu and Hjørland's concepts, here built to analyze the architecture domain, may be used to analyze other domains. Originality/value - Domain analysis is employed as an approach to the study of the information aspects but here supported by the sociological concepts of Bourdieu. Thus, it is possible to understand what, how and why the informational practices are constituted inside a domain of knowledge, and, fundamentally, interpret the historical, cultural, and social dimensions that influence the construction of information.

0.008000568 = product of:
  0.06400454 = sum of:
    0.06400454 = weight(_text_:hochschule in 1417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06400454 = score(doc=1417,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23689921 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.27017626 = fieldWeight in 1417, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1417)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Content

"Kennt doch jeder: Man will in einer fremden Stadt am Automat einen Fahr schein für die Straßenbahn ziehen. Quälende Minuten später steht man immer noch vor dem vertrackten Gerät, nur viel wütender und vor' allem beschämt, weil man sich im Gewirr der Knöpfe, Straßenverzeichnisse und Tarife verheddert hat. Statt der Einzelfahrkarte für einen Erwachsenen hält man schließlich ein 24-Stunden-Familien-Ticket in der Hand. Das Ende vom Lied: Der Benutzer hält sich für technisch vertrottelt. Dabei ist genau das Gegenteil der Fall: Der Entwickler, der sich das Gerät ausdachte, besaß keinerlei Einfühlungsvermögen in die Logik des künftigen Benutzers. Nach leidvoller Erfahrung hat sich inzwischen die Erkenntnis durchgesetzt, dass Benutzerführung gelernt sein muss und sie nicht einfach technikvernarrten Ingenieuren überlassen werden darf An der Stuttgarter Hochschule für Medien gibt es deshalb seit dem Wintersemester 2001/2002 den Bachelor-Studiengang Informationsdesign - Studenten lernen in sieben Semestern, wie man Menschen sinnvoll durch den Informationsdschungel des 21. Jahrhunderts führt. Wie entwickelt man ein Orientierungsssystem für ein Museum, das den Besucher nicht in die Irre führt? Wie kommt ein Kunde am Bankautomaten zügig an sein Geld, ohne dass seine Karte wegen einer irrtümlich gedrückten Taste sofort verschluckt wird? Und wie schreibt man eine Gebrauchsanweisung, die tatsächlich ein technisches Gerät bedienen hilft? Klar, dass es hier nicht nur um Handwerk, sondern vor allem auch um das Verständnis menschlicher Kommunikation geht. In den USA und in Großbritannien ist der Studiengang Informationsdesign längst etabliert. Die Absolventen fänden problemlos Jobs, sagt der Stuttgarter Studiengangsleiter Professor Frank Thissen. Auch hier zu Lande scheint die Wirtschaft sehr angetan. Dabei hat sie das neue Berufsbild geradezu provoziert. Weil neue Produkte meist unter großem Zeitdruck entwickelt werden, sparen viele Firmen am Ende ausgerechnet an den Benutzertests. Auch manche Bedienungsanleitung verunzierte heute nicht die Welt, wäre sie zuvor nur ein einziges Mal mit technisch durchschnittlich begabten Menschen in Berührung gekommen. Welchen Nutzen hat schon ein Benutzerhandbuch, das einem derartige Anleitungen zumutet: "Wenn Sie die Druckformatvorlage eines Dokumentes mit der Druckformatvorlage einer Dokumentvorlage verbinden, ersetzen die Druckformatdefinitionen des Dokuments die gleichnamigen Druckformatdeflnitionen der Dokumentvorlage." Es gibt noch viel zu tun für die Informationsdesign-Studenten. Manchmal allerdings reichte gesunder Menschenverstand schon aus, um Peinlichkeiten zu vermeiden, so wie die Warnung auf dem Beipackzettel eines Schlafmittels: "Achtung, kann Müdigkeit verursachen!"."

0.007137301 = product of:
  0.057098407 = sum of:
    0.057098407 = weight(_text_:work in 825) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057098407 = score(doc=825,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.40144894 = fieldWeight in 825, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=825)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Three problems in relation to Luciano Floridi's work on the Philosophy of Information (PI) and the relationship of PI to Library and Information Science (LIS) are considered: the claim that LIS is a materials-based discipline, Floridi's claim about Information as a message transfer system, and his downgrading of Social Epistemology to be a subset of PI. The recent history of LIS and the practice of professional library work are examined for evidence of the basis for making claims about LIS. A view of information based on individual interpretations is preferred to Floridi's account, which is found to be too innocent of LIS practice to be accepted without revision, as is his view of LIS as an applied PI.

0.006738762 = product of:
  0.026955048 = sum of:
    0.020392288 = weight(_text_:work in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020392288 = score(doc=2748,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.14337462 = fieldWeight in 2748, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2748)
    0.00656276 = product of:
      0.01312552 = sum of:
        0.01312552 = weight(_text_:22 in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01312552 = score(doc=2748,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13569894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03875087 = queryNorm
            0.09672529 = fieldWeight in 2748, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2748)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Content

"This letter considers some main arguments in Professor Bates' article (2008), which is part of our former debate (Bates, 2005,2006; Hjoerland, 2007). Bates (2008) does not write much to restate or enlarge on her theoretical position but is mostly arguing about what she claims Hjorland (2007) ignored or misinterpreted in her two articles. Bates (2008, p. 842) wrote that my arguments did not reflect "a standard of coherence, consistency, and logic that is expected of an argument presented in a scientific journal." My argumentation below will refute this statement. This controversy is whether information should be understood as a subjective phenomenon (alone), as an objective phenomenon (alone), or as a combined objective and a subjective phenomenon ("having it both ways"). Bates (2006) defined "information" (sometimes, e.g., termed "information 1," p. 1042) as an objective phenomenon and "information 2" as a subjective phenomenon. However, sometimes the term "information" is also used as a synonym for "information 2," e.g., "the term information is understood to refer to one or both senses" (p. 1042). Thus, Professor Bates is not consistent in using the terminology that she herself introduces, and confusion in this controversy may be caused by Professor Bates' ambiguity in her use of the term "information." Bates (2006, p. 1033) defined information as an objective phenomenon by joining a definition by Edwin Parker: "Information is the pattern of organization of matter and energy." The argument in Hjoerland (2007) is, by contrast, that information should be understood as a subjective phenomenon all the way down: That neither the objective definition of information nor "having it both ways" is fruitful. This is expressed, for example, by joining Karpatschof's (2000) definition of information as a physical signal relative to a certain release mechanism, which implies that information is not something objective that can be understood independently of an observer or independently of other kinds of mechanism that are programmed to be sensitive to specific attributes of a signal: There are many differences in the world, and each of them is potentially informative in given situations. Regarding Parker's definition, "patterns of organization of matter and energy" are no more than that until they inform somebody about something. When they inform somebody about something, they may be considered information. The following quote is part of the argumentation in Bates (2008): "He contrasts my definition of information as 'observer-independent' with his position that information is 'situational' and adds a list of respected names on the situational side (Hjoerland, 2007, p. 1448). What this sentence, and much of the remainder of his argument, ignores is the fact that my approach accounts for both an observer-independent and a contextual, situational sense of information." Yes, it is correct that I mostly concentrated on refuting Bates' objective definition of information. It is as if Bates expects an overall appraisal of her work rather than providing a specific analysis of the points on which there are disagreements. I see Bates' "having it both ways": a symptom of inconsistence in argumentation.
References Bates, M.J. (2005). Information and knowledge: An evolutionary framework for information science. Information Research, 10(4), paper 239. Available at http://InformationR.net/ir/10-4/paper239.html. Bates, M.J. (2006). Fundamental forms of information. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(8), 1033-1045. Bates, M.J. (2008). Hjorland's critique of Bates' work on defining information. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(5), 842-844. Hjoerland, B. (2000). Documents, memory institutions, and information science. Journal of Documentation, 56, 27-41. Hjoerland, B. (2007). Information: Objective or subjective-situational? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(10), 1448-1456. Karpatschof, B. (2000). Human activity. Contributions to the anthropological sciences from a perspective of activity theory. Copenhagen: Dansk Psykologisk Forlag. Retrieved May 14, 2007, from http://informationr.net/ir/ 12-3/Karpatschof/Karp00.html.

Date

22. 3.2009 18:13:27

0.006676334 = product of:
  0.05341067 = sum of:
    0.05341067 = weight(_text_:work in 4244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05341067 = score(doc=4244,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.37552112 = fieldWeight in 4244, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4244)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Does information science have a theory of information? There seems to be a tendency within information science to seek a theory of information, but the search is apparently unproductive (Hjoerland, 1998; Saracevic, 1999). This review brings together work from inside and outside the field of information science, showing that other perspectives an information theory could be of assistance. Constructivist claims that emphasize the uniqueness of the individual experience of information, maintaining that there is no information independent of our social practices (Cornelius, 1996a), are also mentioned. Such a position would be echoed in a symbolic interactionist approach. Conventionally, the history of attempts to develop a theory of information date from the publication of Claude Shannon's work in 1948, and his joint publication of that work with an essay by Warren Weaver in 1949 (Shannon & Weaver, 1949/1963). Information science found itself alongside many other disciplines attempting to develop a theory of information (Machlup & Mansfield, 1983). From Weaver's essay stems the claim that the basic concepts of Shannon's mathematical theory of communication, which Shannon later referred to as a theory of information, can be applied in disciplines outside electrical engineering, even in the social sciences.
Shannon provides a model whereby an information source selects a desired message, out of a set of possible messages, that is then formed into a signal. The signal is sent over the communication channel to a receiver, which then transforms the signal back to a message that is relayed to its destination (Shannon & Weaver, 1949/1963, p. 7). Problems connected with this model have remained with us. Some of the concepts are ambiguous; the identification of information with a process has spancelled the debate; the problems of measuring the amount of information, the relation of information to meaning, and questions about the truth value of information have remained. Balancing attention between the process and the act of receiving information, and deterrnining the character of the receiver, has also been the focus of work and debate. Information science has mined work from other disciplines involving information theory and has also produced its own theory. The desire for theory remains (Hjorland, 1998; Saracevic, 1999), but what theory will deliver is unclear. The distinction between data and information, or communication and information, is not of concern here. The convention that data, at some point of use, become information, and that information is transferred in a process of communication suffices for this discussion. Substitution of any of these terms is not a problem. More problematic is the relationship between information and knowledge. It seems accepted that at some point the data by perception, or selection, become information, which feeds and alters knowledge structures in a human recipient. What that process of alteration is, and its implications, remain problematic. This review considers the following questions: 1. What can be gleaned from the history of reviews of information in information science? 2. What current maps, guides, and surveys are available to elaborate our understanding of the issues? 3. Is there a parallel development of work outside information science an information theory of use to us? 4. Is there a dominant view of information within information science? 5. What can we say about issues like measurement, meaning, and misinformation? 6. Is there other current work of relevance that can assist attempts, in information science, to develop a theory of information?

0.0061176866 = product of:
  0.048941493 = sum of:
    0.048941493 = weight(_text_:work in 830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048941493 = score(doc=830,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.3440991 = fieldWeight in 830, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=830)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

How can one verify the accuracy of recorded information (e.g., information found in books, newspapers, and on Web sites)? In this paper, I argue that work in the epistemology of testimony (especially that of philosophers David Hume and Alvin Goldman) can help with this important practical problem in library and information science. This work suggests that there are four important areas to consider when verifying the accuracy of information: (i) authority, (ii) independent corroboration, (iii) plausibility and support, and (iv) presentation. I show how philosophical research in these areas can improve how information professionals go about teaching people how to evaluate information. Finally, I discuss several further techniques that information professionals can and should use to make it easier for people to verify the accuracy of information.

0.00576781 = product of:
  0.04614248 = sum of:
    0.04614248 = weight(_text_:work in 7422) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04614248 = score(doc=7422,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.32441974 = fieldWeight in 7422, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7422)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

The present article describes the use of Repertory Grid methodology as a menas of externalizing an individual's view of information space. The method is described with a single participant, and appears to offer a viable means of exploring the concept of information space. Future work will examine multiple views in an attampt to explore the extent to which the concept is shared among a group of people

0.00576781 = product of:
  0.04614248 = sum of:
    0.04614248 = weight(_text_:work in 4445) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04614248 = score(doc=4445,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.32441974 = fieldWeight in 4445, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4445)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

From the perspective of semiotics, "information" is an ambiguous theoretical concept because the word is used to represent both signifier and signified, both text and content. Using the work of Fernand de Saussure, this paper explores theoretical possibilities that open by virtue of understanding information as sign. Of particular interest is the way semiotics suggests ways to bridge the theoretical gap between information as thing and information as cognitive phenomenon by positing information as a cultural phenomenon.

0.005568687 = product of:
  0.044549495 = sum of:
    0.044549495 = product of:
      0.08909899 = sum of:
        0.08909899 = weight(_text_:22 in 3952) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08909899 = score(doc=3952,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13569894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03875087 = queryNorm
            0.6565931 = fieldWeight in 3952, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3952)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Date

17. 7.1996 9:33:22
22. 7.2000 19:05:41

0.005250208 = product of:
  0.042001665 = sum of:
    0.042001665 = product of:
      0.08400333 = sum of:
        0.08400333 = weight(_text_:22 in 4368) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08400333 = score(doc=4368,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13569894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03875087 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 4368, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4368)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Date

13. 7.2008 19:22:28

0.005098072 = product of:
  0.040784575 = sum of:
    0.040784575 = weight(_text_:work in 4773) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040784575 = score(doc=4773,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.28674924 = fieldWeight in 4773, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4773)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Content

Bezugnahme auf: Hjoerland, B.: Information: Objective or subjective/situational? In: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(2007) no.10, S.1448-1456. - Vgl. Erwiderung: Hjoerland, B.: The controversy over the concept of information: a rejoinder to Professor Bates. In: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.3, S.643. Vgl. auch: Bates, M.J.: Birger Hjørland's Manichean misconstruction of Marcia Bates' work. In: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.10, S.2038-2044.

0.005046834 = product of:
  0.04037467 = sum of:
    0.04037467 = weight(_text_:work in 519) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04037467 = score(doc=519,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.28386727 = fieldWeight in 519, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=519)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Through this article, we highlight that there are discernibly different patterns among conceptualizations of information, technology, and people across information systems and information science literatures. We do this to clarify the differences in these two areas of scholarship and to further encourage the substantial overlap possible, but not yet engaged, in the research pursued in these areas. We engage this by analyzing published literature in these areas to frame our discussion of the challenges and opportunities for scholars in information science and information systems disciplines to engage in collaborative work.

0.005046834 = product of:
  0.04037467 = sum of:
    0.04037467 = weight(_text_:work in 560) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04037467 = score(doc=560,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.28386727 = fieldWeight in 560, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=560)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)