Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Fallis, D."
  1. Fallis, D.: Toward an epistemology of Wikipedia (2008) 0.04 
    0.039118137 = product of:
  0.078236274 = sum of:
    0.078236274 = sum of:
      0.053934377 = weight(_text_:e.g in 2010) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.053934377 = score(doc=2010,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23393378 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044842023 = queryNorm
          0.23055404 = fieldWeight in 2010, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2010)
      0.0243019 = weight(_text_:22 in 2010) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0243019 = score(doc=2010,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15702912 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.044842023 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2010, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2010)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Wikipedia (the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit) is having a huge impact on how a great many people gather information about the world. So, it is important for epistemologists and information scientists to ask whether people are likely to acquire knowledge as a result of having access to this information source. In other words, is Wikipedia having good epistemic consequences? After surveying the various concerns that have been raised about the reliability of Wikipedia, this article argues that the epistemic consequences of people using Wikipedia as a source of information are likely to be quite good. According to several empirical studies, the reliability of Wikipedia compares favorably to the reliability of traditional encyclopedias. Furthermore, the reliability of Wikipedia compares even more favorably to the reliability of those information sources that people would be likely to use if Wikipedia did not exist (viz., Web sites that are as freely and easily accessible as Wikipedia). In addition, Wikipedia has a number of other epistemic virtues (e.g., power, speed, and fecundity) that arguably outweigh any deficiency in terms of reliability. Even so, epistemologists and information scientists should certainly be trying to identify changes (or alternatives) to Wikipedia that will bring about even better epistemic consequences. This article suggests that to improve Wikipedia, we need to clarify what our epistemic values are and to better understand why Wikipedia works as well as it does. Somebody who reads Wikipedia is rather in the position of a visitor to a public restroom, says Mr. McHenry, Britannica's former editor. It may be obviously dirty, so that he knows to exercise great care, or it may seem fairly clean, so that he may be lulled into a false sense of security. What he certainly does not know is who has used the facilities before him. One wonders whether people like Mr. McHenry would prefer there to be no public lavatories at all. The Economist (Vol. 379, April 22, 2006, pp. 14-15)
  2. Fallis, D.: Social epistemology and information science (2006) 0.02 
    0.0243019 = product of:
  0.0486038 = sum of:
    0.0486038 = product of:
      0.0972076 = sum of:
        0.0972076 = weight(_text_:22 in 4368) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0972076 = score(doc=4368,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15702912 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044842023 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    13. 7.2008 19:22:28
  3. Fallis, D.; Mathiesen, K.: Consistency rules for classification schemes (or how to organize your beanie babies) (2000) 0.02 
    0.020225393 = product of:
  0.040450785 = sum of:
    0.040450785 = product of:
      0.08090157 = sum of:
        0.08090157 = weight(_text_:e.g in 107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08090157 = score(doc=107,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23393378 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044842023 = queryNorm
            0.34583107 = fieldWeight in 107, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=107)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    A classification scheme is more predictable-and, thus, more effective-if it has a consistent structure. In this paper, a number of (defeasible) consistency rules for constructing classification schemes are identified (e.g., division by a single type of attribute, division at a single level of abstraction, horizontal consistency, vertical consistency). An explicit statement of these rules, not all of which have been explicitly codified in the library and information science literature, should be useful to the developers of retrieval systems. In addition, some preliminary suggestions are made regarding how these rules might be used to define a measure of the consistency of a classification scheme
  4. Frické, M.; Fallis, D.: Indicators of accuracy for answers to ready reference questions an the Internet (2004) 0.02 
    0.020225393 = product of:
  0.040450785 = sum of:
    0.040450785 = product of:
      0.08090157 = sum of:
        0.08090157 = weight(_text_:e.g in 2220) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08090157 = score(doc=2220,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23393378 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044842023 = queryNorm
            0.34583107 = fieldWeight in 2220, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2220)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The Internet is increasingly being used as a source of reference information. Internet users need to be able to distinguish accurate information from inaccurate information. Toward this end, information professionals have published checklists for evaluating information. However, such checklists can be effective only if the proposed indicators of accuracy really do indicate accuracy. This study implements a technique for testing such indicators of accuracy and uses it to test indicators of accuracy for answers to ready reference questions. Many of the commonly proposed indicators of accuracy (e.g., that the Web site does not contain advertising) were not found to be correlated with accuracy. However, the link structure of the Internet can be used to identify Web sites that are more likely to contain accurate reference information.
  5. Fallis, D.: On verifying the accuracy of information : philosophical perspectives (2004) 0.02 
    0.020225393 = product of:
  0.040450785 = sum of:
    0.040450785 = product of:
      0.08090157 = sum of:
        0.08090157 = weight(_text_:e.g in 830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08090157 = score(doc=830,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23393378 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044842023 = queryNorm
            0.34583107 = fieldWeight in 830, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=830)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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.

Authors

Themes