Search (43 results, page 2 of 3)

  • × theme_ss:"Social tagging"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. Carlin, S.A.: Schlagwortvergabe durch Nutzende (Tagging) als Hilfsmittel zur Suche im Web : Ansatz, Modelle, Realisierungen (2006) 0.00 
    0.003843119 = product of:
  0.023058712 = sum of:
    0.023058712 = product of:
      0.046117425 = sum of:
        0.046117425 = weight(_text_:web in 2476) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046117425 = score(doc=2476,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.11439841 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = queryNorm
            0.40312994 = fieldWeight in 2476, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2476)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    Nach dem zu Beginn der Ära des World Wide Web von Hand gepflegte Linklisten und -Verzeichnisse und an Freunde und Kollegen per E-Mail verschickte Links genügten, um die Informationen zu finden, nach denen man suchte, waren schon bald Volltextsuchmaschinen und halbautomatisch betriebene Kataloge notwendig, um den mehr und mehr anschwellenden Informationsfluten des Web Herr zu werden. Heute bereits sind diese Dämme gebrochen und viele Millionen Websites halten Billionen an Einzelseiten mit Informationen vor, von Datenbanken und anderweitig versteckten Informationen ganz zu schweigen. Mit Volltextsuchmaschinen erreicht man bei dieser Masse keine befriedigenden Ergebnisse mehr. Entweder man erzeugt lange Suchterme mit vielen Ausschließungen und ebenso vielen nicht-exklusiven ODER-Verknüpfungen um verschiedene Schreibweisen für den gleichen Term abzudecken oder man wählt von vornherein die Daten-Quelle, an die man seine Fragen stellt, genau aus. Doch oft bleiben nur klassische Web-Suchmaschinen übrig, zumal wenn der Fragende kein Informationsspezialist mit Kenntnissen von Spezialdatenbanken ist, sondern, von dieser Warte aus gesehenen, ein Laie. Und nicht nur im Web selbst, auch in unternehmensinternen Intranets steht man vor diesem Problem. Tausende von indizierten Dokumente mögen ein Eckdatum sein, nach dem sich der Erfolg der Einführung eines Intranets bemessen lässt, aber eine Aussage über die Nützlichkeit ist damit nicht getroffen. Und die bleibt meist hinter den Erwartungen zurück, vor allem bei denen Mitarbeitern, die tatsächlich mit dem Intranet arbeiten müssen. Entscheidend ist für die Informationsauffindung in Inter- und Intranet eine einfach zu nutzende und leicht anpassbare Möglichkeit, neue interessante Inhalte zu entdecken. Mit Tags steht eine mögliche Lösung bereit.
  2. Hammond, T.; Hannay, T.; Lund, B.; Scott, J.: Social bookmarking tools (I) : a general review (2005) 0.00 
    0.0034028427 = product of:
  0.020417055 = sum of:
    0.020417055 = product of:
      0.04083411 = sum of:
        0.04083411 = weight(_text_:web in 1188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04083411 = score(doc=1188,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.11439841 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = queryNorm
            0.35694647 = fieldWeight in 1188, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1188)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    Because, to paraphrase a pop music lyric from a certain rock and roll band of yesterday, "the Web is old, the Web is new, the Web is all, the Web is you", it seems like we might have to face up to some of these stark realities. With the introduction of new social software applications such as blogs, wikis, newsfeeds, social networks, and bookmarking tools (the subject of this paper), the claim that Shelley Powers makes in a Burningbird blog entry seems apposite: "This is the user's web now, which means it's my web and I can make the rules." Reinvention is revolution - it brings us always back to beginnings. We are here going to remind you of hyperlinks in all their glory, sell you on the idea of bookmarking hyperlinks, point you at other folks who are doing the same, and tell you why this is a good thing. Just as long as those hyperlinks (or let's call them plain old links) are managed, tagged, commented upon, and published onto the Web, they represent a user's own personal library placed on public record, which - when aggregated with other personal libraries - allows for rich, social networking opportunities. Why spill any ink (digital or not) in rewriting what someone else has already written about instead of just pointing at the original story and adding the merest of titles, descriptions and tags for future reference? More importantly, why not make these personal 'link playlists' available to oneself and to others from whatever browser or computer one happens to be using at the time? This paper reviews some current initiatives, as of early 2005, in providing public link management applications on the Web - utilities that are often referred to under the general moniker of 'social bookmarking tools'. There are a couple of things going on here: 1) server-side software aimed specifically at managing links with, crucially, a strong, social networking flavour, and 2) an unabashedly open and unstructured approach to tagging, or user classification, of those links.
  3. Farkas, M.G.: Social software in libraries : building collaboration, communication, and community online (2007) 0.00 
    0.002916722 = product of:
  0.017500332 = sum of:
    0.017500332 = product of:
      0.035000663 = sum of:
        0.035000663 = weight(_text_:web in 2364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035000663 = score(doc=2364,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11439841 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = queryNorm
            0.3059541 = fieldWeight in 2364, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2364)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    RSWK
    Bibliothek / Web log
    Subject
    Bibliothek / Web log
  4. Derntl, M.; Hampel, T.; Motschnig, R.; Pitner, T.: Social Tagging und Inclusive Universal Access (2008) 0.00 
    0.002916722 = product of:
  0.017500332 = sum of:
    0.017500332 = product of:
      0.035000663 = sum of:
        0.035000663 = weight(_text_:web in 2864) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035000663 = score(doc=2864,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11439841 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = queryNorm
            0.3059541 = fieldWeight in 2864, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2864)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    Der vorliegende Artikel beleuchtet und bewertet Social Tagging als aktuelles Phänomen des Web 2.0 im Kontext bekannter Techniken der semantischen Datenorganisation. Tagging wird in einen Raum verwandter Ordnungs- und Strukturierungsansätze eingeordnet, um die fundamentalen Grundlagen des Social Tagging zu identifizieren und zuzuweisen. Dabei wird Tagging anhand des Inclusive Universal Access Paradigmas bewertet, das technische als auch menschlich-soziale Kriterien für die inklusive und barrierefreie Bereitstellung und Nutzung von Diensten definiert. Anhand dieser Bewertung werden fundamentale Prinzipien des "Inclusive Social Tagging" hergeleitet, die der Charakterisierung und Bewertung gängiger Tagging-Funktionalitäten in verbreiteten Web-2.0-Diensten dienen. Aus der Bewertung werden insbesondere Entwicklungsmöglichkeiten von Social Tagging und unterstützenden Diensten erkennbar.
  5. Lewen, H.: Personalisierte Ordnung von Objekten basierend auf Vertrauensnetzwerken (2008) 0.00 
    0.002749912 = product of:
  0.01649947 = sum of:
    0.01649947 = product of:
      0.03299894 = sum of:
        0.03299894 = weight(_text_:web in 2305) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03299894 = score(doc=2305,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11439841 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = queryNorm
            0.2884563 = fieldWeight in 2305, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2305)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    Open Rating Systeme werden zur Be­wertung unterschiedlichster Objekte eingesetzt. Benutzer können Rezensionen über Objekte verfassen, andere Benutzer können die Qualität dieser Rezensionen bewerten. Basierend auf diesen Bewertungen der Rezensionen wird ein Vertrauensnetzwerk (Web of Trust) aufgebaut. Zwei Benutzer werden durch eine gerichtete Kante verbunden, wenn ein Benutzer dem System mitteilt, dass er einem anderen Benutzer vertraut, Inhalte korrekt zu bewerten. Basierend auf diesem persönlichen Vertrauensnetzwerk werden Objekte und auch die Rezensionen für ein bestimmtes Objekt individuell für jeden Benutzer angeordnet.
  6. Regulski, K.: Aufwand und Nutzen beim Einsatz von Social-Bookmarking-Services als Nachweisinstrument für wissenschaftliche Forschungsartikel am Beispiel von BibSonomy (2007) 0.00 
    0.002749912 = product of:
  0.01649947 = sum of:
    0.01649947 = product of:
      0.03299894 = sum of:
        0.03299894 = weight(_text_:web in 4595) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03299894 = score(doc=4595,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11439841 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = queryNorm
            0.2884563 = fieldWeight in 4595, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4595)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    Autoren wissenschaftlicher Artikel stehen unterschiedliche Wege bei der Recherche nach Hintergrundmaterial zu ihren Projekten zur Verfügung. Dass Social-Bookmarking-Dienste, die als Teil des Web 2.0 (O'Reilly, 2005) und der Bibliothek 2.0 (Danowski, 2006) genannt werden, eine sinnvolle Ergänzung zu den herkömmlichen Nachweisdatenbanken sein können, soll der vorliegende Artikel zeigen.
  7. Shirky, C.: Ontology is overrated : categories, links, and tags (2005) 0.00 
    0.0024306017 = product of:
  0.01458361 = sum of:
    0.01458361 = product of:
      0.02916722 = sum of:
        0.02916722 = weight(_text_:web in 1265) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02916722 = score(doc=1265,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11439841 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = queryNorm
            0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 1265, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1265)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    Today I want to talk about categorization, and I want to convince you that a lot of what we think we know about categorization is wrong. In particular, I want to convince you that many of the ways we're attempting to apply categorization to the electronic world are actually a bad fit, because we've adopted habits of mind that are left over from earlier strategies. I also want to convince you that what we're seeing when we see the Web is actually a radical break with previous categorization strategies, rather than an extension of them. The second part of the talk is more speculative, because it is often the case that old systems get broken before people know what's going to take their place. (Anyone watching the music industry can see this at work today.) That's what I think is happening with categorization. What I think is coming instead are much more organic ways of organizing information than our current categorization schemes allow, based on two units -- the link, which can point to anything, and the tag, which is a way of attaching labels to links. The strategy of tagging -- free-form labeling, without regard to categorical constraints -- seems like a recipe for disaster, but as the Web has shown us, you can extract a surprising amount of value from big messy data sets.
  8. Hänger, C.: Knowledge management in the digital age : the possibilities of user generated content (2009) 0.00 
    0.0024306017 = product of:
  0.01458361 = sum of:
    0.01458361 = product of:
      0.02916722 = sum of:
        0.02916722 = weight(_text_:web in 2813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02916722 = score(doc=2813,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11439841 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = queryNorm
            0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 2813, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2813)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    Today, in times of Web 2.0., graduates and undergraduates interact in virtual communities like studiVZ (Studentenverzeichnis) and generate content by reviewing or tagging documents. This phenomenon offers good prospects for academic libraries. They can use the customers' tags for indexing the growing amount of electronic resources and thereby optimize the search for these documents. Important examples are the journals, databases and e-books included in the "Nationallizenzen" financed by the German Research Foundation (DFG). The documents in this collection are not manually indexed by librarians and have no annotation according to the German standard classification systems. Connecting search systems by means of Web-2.0.-services is an important task for libraries. For this purpose users are encouraged to tag printed and electronic resources in search systems like the libraries' online catalogs and to establish connections between entries in other systems, e.g. Bibsonomy, and the items found in the online catalog. As a consequence annotations chosen by both, users and librarians, will coexist: The items in the tagging systems and the online catalog are linked, library users may find other publications of interest, and contacts between library users with similar scientific interests may be established. Librarians have to face the fact that user generated tags do not necessarily have the same quality as their own annotations and will therefore have to seek for instruments for comparing user generated tags with library generated keywords.
  9. Abreu, A.: "Every bit informs another" : framework analysis for descriptive practice and linked information (2008) 0.00 
    0.002406173 = product of:
  0.0144370375 = sum of:
    0.0144370375 = product of:
      0.028874075 = sum of:
        0.028874075 = weight(_text_:web in 2249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028874075 = score(doc=2249,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11439841 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = queryNorm
            0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 2249, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2249)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Content
    The independent traditions of description in bibliographic and archival environments are rich and continually evolving. Recognizing this, how can Libraries, Archives and Museums seek convergence in describing materials on the web? In order to seek better description for materials and cross-institutional alignment, we can first reconceptualize where description may fit into work practices. I examine subject cataloging and archival practice alongside social tagging as a means of drawing conclusions for possible new paths in integration.
  10. Tschetschonig, K.; Ladengruber, R.; Hampel, T.; Schulte, J.: Kollaborative Tagging-Systeme im Electronic Commerce (2008) 0.00 
    0.002406173 = product of:
  0.0144370375 = sum of:
    0.0144370375 = product of:
      0.028874075 = sum of:
        0.028874075 = weight(_text_:web in 2891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028874075 = score(doc=2891,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11439841 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = queryNorm
            0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 2891, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2891)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    Social-Tagging-Systeme bieten eine Vielzahl an Vorteilen gegenüber traditionellen und zurzeit eingesetzten Systemen und werden besonders in nicht-kommerziellen Web-2.0-Anwendungen erfolgreich verwendet. Diese Arbeit beschäftigt sich mit den Vor- und Nachteilen von Social Tagging für kollaborative Systeme des Electronic Commerce und stellt einige Beispiele aus der Praxis vor. Es gibt nur wenige Anwendungen aus dem Bereich des Electronic Commerce, die Social Tagging erfolgreich als kritischen Teil ihrer Systeme einsetzen. Deshalb wird das Potenzial von Tagging-Systemen beleuchtet, um eine fundierte Basis für neue Entwicklungen im Geschäftsbereich zu schaffen.
  11. Panke, S.; Gaiser, B.: "With my head up in the clouds" : Social Tagging aus Nutzersicht (2008) 0.00 
    0.0020624339 = product of:
  0.012374603 = sum of:
    0.012374603 = product of:
      0.024749206 = sum of:
        0.024749206 = weight(_text_:web in 2883) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024749206 = score(doc=2883,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11439841 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = queryNorm
            0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 2883, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2883)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    28 Prozent der amerikanischen Internetnutzer/innen haben es bereits getan: Das freie Verschlagworten von Inhalten aller Art per Social Tagging gehört zu den Anwendungen aus dem Kontext von Web 2.0, die sich zunehmender Beliebtheit erfreuen (Rainie, 2007). Während sich die bisherige Forschung überwiegend inhaltsanalytisch mit dem Phänomen befasst, kommen im vorliegenden Beitrag so genannte "Power User" zu Wort. Um zu einer fundierteren Interpretation der in den Inhaltsanalysen gewonnenen Erkenntnisse beizutragen, wurden Interviews mit Personen durchgeführt, die mehrere Tagging Systeme parallel einsetzen, sich auch mit den technischen Grundlagen auskennen und als "Early Adopter" bereits seit geraumer Zeit aktiv sind. Entsprechend leitet der Beitrag von einer Synopse der aktuellen Literatur in die beschriebene Studie über und schließt mit einem Ausblick auf zukünftige Forschungsvorhaben im Kontext von Social Tagging.
  12. Schillerwein, S.: ¬Der 'Business Case' für die Nutzung von Social Tagging in Intranets und internen Informationssystemen (2008) 0.00 
    0.0020624339 = product of:
  0.012374603 = sum of:
    0.012374603 = product of:
      0.024749206 = sum of:
        0.024749206 = weight(_text_:web in 2893) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024749206 = score(doc=2893,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11439841 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = queryNorm
            0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 2893, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2893)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    Trendthemen, wie Social Tagging oder Web 2.0, bergen generell die Gefahr, dass Adaptionsentscheidungen auf Basis von im öffentlichen Internet vorgefundenen und den Medien lautstark thematisierten Erfolgsbeispielen getroffen werden. Für die interne Anwendung in einer Organisation ist dieses Vorgehen jedoch risikoreich. Deshalb sollte ein ausführlicher Business Case am Anfang jedes SocialTagging-Projekts stehen, der Nutzen- und Risikopotenziale realistisch einzuschätzen vermag. Der vorliegende Beitrag listet dazu exemplarisch die wichtigsten Aspekte für die Einschätzung des Wertbeitrags und der Stolpersteine für Social Tagging in Intranets und vergleichbaren internen Informationssystemen wie Mitarbeiterportalen, Dokumenten-Repositories und Knowledge Bases auf.
  13. Birkenhake, B.: Semantic Weblog : Erfahrungen vom Bloggen mit Tags und Ontologien (2008) 0.00 
    0.0020624339 = product of:
  0.012374603 = sum of:
    0.012374603 = product of:
      0.024749206 = sum of:
        0.024749206 = weight(_text_:web in 2894) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024749206 = score(doc=2894,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11439841 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = queryNorm
            0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 2894, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2894)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    Der Begriff "Semantic Weblog" bezeichnet die Idee, zwei Konzepte - nämlich Bloggen und Semantic Web - zusammenzuführen. Ausgangspunkt ist dabei die Tatsache, dass Blogs, die länger bestehen, Wissen über bestimmte Domänen ansammeln. Dieses Wissen wird in einem ersten Schritt durch Volltextanalyse und in einem zweien Schritt durch Kategorie- und Tagging-Mechanismen erschlossen und kann durch weitere Schritte zu einfachen Ontologien ausgebaut werden. Dieser Beitrag gliedert sich in mehrere Teile. Zunächst wird das Konzept und seine ersten Implementierungen sowie mögliche Vernetzung von mehreren Semantic Weblogs vorgestellt. Dann wird ein Einblick in die Erfahrungen aus der Semantic Weblog-Praxis gegeben. Abgeschlossen wird der Artikel durch einen Ausblick.
  14. Komus, A.; Wauch, F.: Wikimanagement : was Unternehmen von Social-Software und Web 2.0 lernen können (2008) 0.00 
    0.0019444814 = product of:
  0.011666888 = sum of:
    0.011666888 = product of:
      0.023333777 = sum of:
        0.023333777 = weight(_text_:web in 508) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023333777 = score(doc=508,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11439841 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = queryNorm
            0.2039694 = fieldWeight in 508, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=508)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    Wie schaffen es hunderttausende Menschen in ihrer Freizeit eine Enzyklopädie zu erstellen, die in der Qualität der seit Jahrhunderten renommierten Brockhaus-Enzyklopädie in nichts nachsteht und in der Quantität weit übertrifft? Warum veröffentlichen Millionen von Internetnutzern ihre Urlaubsbilder und Videos aus dem privaten Leben im Netz? Wieso funktioniert die Informationsversorgung durch Touristen und Privatleute oftmals besser als die Berichterstattung der großen Agenturen? Und warum versprechen sich Unternehmen wie Google oder die Holtzbrinck Gruppe so viel von derartigen Plattformen, dass deren Gründer über Nacht zu Millionären werden? Wie schaffte es eine australische Brauerei, vom Business Plan bis zur Produktionsplanung alle Prozesse von einer Internet-Community entwickeln zu lassen? Wie passt die lose Kollaboration im Netz zu mühsam ausgearbeiteten und über viele Jahrzehnte untersuchten Organisationsmodellen in Unternehmen? Was können Unternehmen von Wikipedia & Co lernen? Wikimanagement gibt nicht nur einen ausführlichen Überblick über die aktuelle Welt des Web 2.0, sondern stellt auch die Funktionsweise der Wikipedia und anderer Social Software-Systeme den wichtigsten organisationstheoretischen Ansätzen gegenüber. In Anwendungsfeldern wie Innovation, Projektmanagement, Marketing und vielen anderen wird deutlich gemacht, wie Unternehmen von Social Software-Technologie und -Philosophie lernen und profitieren können.
  15. Trant, J.; Bearman, D.: Social terminology enhancement through vernacular engagement : exploring collaborative annotation to encourage interaction with museum collections (2005) 0.00 
    0.0019444814 = product of:
  0.011666888 = sum of:
    0.011666888 = product of:
      0.023333777 = sum of:
        0.023333777 = weight(_text_:web in 1185) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023333777 = score(doc=1185,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11439841 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = queryNorm
            0.2039694 = fieldWeight in 1185, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1185)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    From their earliest encounters with the Web, museums have seen an opportunity to move beyond uni-directional communication into an environment that engages their users and reflects a multiplicity of perspectives. Shedding the "Unassailable Voice" (Walsh 1997) in favor of many "Points of View" (Sledge 1995) has challenged traditional museum approaches to the creation and delivery of content. Novel approaches are required in order to develop and sustain user engagement (Durbin 2004). New models of exhibit creation that democratize the curatorial functions of object selection and interpretation offer one way of opening up the museum (Coldicutt and Streten 2005). Another is to use the museum as a forum and focus for community story-telling (Howard, Pratty et al. 2005). Unfortunately, museum collections remain relatively inaccessible even when 'made available' through searchable on-line databases. Museum documentation seldom satisfies the on-line access needs of the broad public, both because it is written using professional terminology and because it may not address what is important to - or remembered by - the museum visitor. For example, an exhibition now on-line at The Metropolitan Museum of Art acknowledges "Coco" Chanel only in the brief, textual introduction (The Metropolitan Museum of Art 2005a). All of the images of her delightful fashion designs are attributed to "Gabrielle Chanel" (The Metropolitan Museum of Art 2005a). Interfaces that organize collections along axes of time or place - such of that of the Timeline of Art History (The Metropolitan Museum of Art 2005e) - often fail to match users' world-views, despite the care that went into their structuring or their significant pedagogical utility. Critically, as professionals working with art museums we realize that when cataloguers and curators describe works of art, they usually do not include the "subject" of the image itself. Simply put, we rarely answer the question "What is it a picture of?" Unfortunately, visitors will often remember a work based on its visual characteristics, only to find that Web-based searches for any of the things they recall do not produce results.
  16. Harrer, A.; Lohmann, S.: Potenziale von Tagging als partizipative Methode für Lehrportale und E-Learning-Kurse (2008) 0.00 
    0.0018469518 = product of:
  0.01108171 = sum of:
    0.01108171 = product of:
      0.03324513 = sum of:
        0.03324513 = weight(_text_:22 in 2889) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03324513 = score(doc=2889,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1227524 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2889, 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=2889)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Date
    21. 6.2009 12:22:44
  17. Hammond, T.; Hannay, T.; Lund, B.; Flack, M.: Social bookmarking tools (II) : a case study - Connotea (2005) 0.00 
    0.001718695 = product of:
  0.01031217 = sum of:
    0.01031217 = product of:
      0.02062434 = sum of:
        0.02062434 = weight(_text_:web in 1189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02062434 = score(doc=1189,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11439841 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = queryNorm
            0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 1189, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1189)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    Connotea is a free online reference management and social bookmarking service for scientists created by Nature Publishing Group. While somewhat experimental in nature, Connotea already has a large and growing number of users, and is a real, fully functioning service. The label 'experimental' is not meant to imply that the service is any way ephemeral or esoteric, rather that the concept of social bookmarking itself and the application of that concept to reference management are both recent developments. Connotea is under active development, and we are still in the process of discovering how people will use it. In addition to Connotea being a free and public service, the core code is freely available under an open source license. Connotea was conceived from the outset as an online, social tool. Seeing the possibilities that del.icio.us was opening up for its users in the area of general web linking, we realised that scholarly reference management was a similar problem space. Connotea was designed and developed late in 2004, and soft-launched at the end of December 2004. Usage has grown over the past several months, to the point where there is now enough data in the system for interesting second-order effects to emerge. This paper will start by giving an overview of Connotea, and will outline the key concepts and describe its main features. We will then take the reader on a brief guided tour, show some of the aforementioned second-order effects, and end with a discussion of Connotea's likely future direction.
  18. Chopin, K.: Finding communities : alternative viewpoints through weblogs and tagging (2008) 0.00 
    0.001718695 = product of:
  0.01031217 = sum of:
    0.01031217 = product of:
      0.02062434 = sum of:
        0.02062434 = weight(_text_:web in 2341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02062434 = score(doc=2341,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11439841 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = queryNorm
            0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 2341, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2341)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    Purpose - This paper aims to discuss and test the claim that user-based tagging allows for access to a wider variety of viewpoints than is found using other forms of online searching. Design/methodology/approach - A general overview of the nature of weblogs and user-based tagging is given, along with other relevant concepts. A case is then analyzed where viewpoints towards a specific issue are searched for using both tag searching (Technorati) and general search engine searching (Google and Google Blog Search). Findings - The claim to greater accessibility through user-based tagging is not overtly supported with these experiments. Further results for both general and tag-specific searching goes against some common assumptions about the types of content found on weblogs as opposed to more general web sites. Research limitations/implications - User-based tagging is still not widespread enough to give conclusive data for analysis. As this changes, further research in this area, using a variety of search subjects, is warranted. Originality/value - Although proponents of user-based tagging attribute many qualities to the practice, these qualities have not been properly documented or demonstrated. This paper partially rectifies this gap by testing one of the claims made, that of accessibility to alternate views, thus adding to the discussion on tagging for both researchers and other interested parties.
  19. Furner, J.: User tagging of library resources : toward a framework for system evaluation (2007) 0.00 
    0.0015974719 = product of:
  0.009584831 = sum of:
    0.009584831 = product of:
      0.028754493 = sum of:
        0.028754493 = weight(_text_:29 in 703) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028754493 = score(doc=703,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12330827 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 703, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=703)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Date
    26.12.2011 13:29:31
  20. Strader, C.R.: Author-assigned keywords versus Library of Congress Subject Headings : implications for the cataloging of electronic theses and dissertations (2009) 0.00 
    0.0015831016 = product of:
  0.009498609 = sum of:
    0.009498609 = product of:
      0.028495826 = sum of:
        0.028495826 = weight(_text_:22 in 3602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028495826 = score(doc=3602,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1227524 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03505379 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3602, 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=3602)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22

Authors

Languages

  • e 25
  • d 17
  • i 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 32
  • el 7
  • m 6
  • b 2
  • s 2
  • x 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications