Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.011924752 = product of:
  0.023849504 = sum of:
    0.023849504 = sum of:
      0.0034122586 = weight(_text_:s in 2667) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0034122586 = score(doc=2667,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.04100075 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03771094 = queryNorm
          0.0832243 = fieldWeight in 2667, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2667)
      0.020437246 = weight(_text_:22 in 2667) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.020437246 = score(doc=2667,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13205728 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03771094 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2667, 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=2667)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 2.2009 12:33:37

Footnote

Rez. in: FR, Nr.289 vom 10.12.2008, S.36: "Das Internet: Unser Fluch? - Schon Internet-Pionier Nicholas Negroponte erklärte das World Wide Web zu einem riesigen Müllhaufen, und dieser Befund dürfte durch die Entwicklung des Netzes eher bestätigt worden sein. Aber wie das so ist mit dem Müll: Für die einen ist es Abfall, andere suchen und finden meistens etwas, das sich zur Wiederverwer- tung eignet. Das muss Andrew Keen entgangen sein, obwohl der IT-Unternehmer (audiocafe.com), sich in der Materie auskennt. Aber das hindert ihn nicht, sich mit geradezu pietistischem Eifer wider den neu-bösen Feind zu wenden: den Blogger. Keen sieht im durch soziale Netzwerke und demokratische Teilhabe geprägten Web 2.0 nicht nur den "Kult des Amateurs" (so der Originaltitel, korrekt übersetzt), sondern sogar die "Vernichtung unserer Kultur". So richtig der eine oder andere Befund sein mag - etwa die Selbstbezüglichkeit vieler Slogger - er wird nicht richtiger durch penetrante Wiederholung. Falsch aber ist eine Behauptung wie die, dass Einträge bei Wikipedia (noch ein Lieblingsfeind Keens) nicht redigiert würden. Da hat sich einer in sein Bedürfnis nach werbewirksamer Polemik verrannt". Vgl. auch: http://www.faz.net/s/Rub117C535CDF414415BB243B181B8B60AE/Doc~E7A6DAB48D2D745FC9054DBF8D9FD8C4F~ATpl~Ecommon~Scontent.html.

Pages

VIII, 247 S

8.7065535E-4 = product of:
  0.0017413107 = sum of:
    0.0017413107 = product of:
      0.0034826214 = sum of:
        0.0034826214 = weight(_text_:s in 1850) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0034826214 = score(doc=1850,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.04100075 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03771094 = queryNorm
            0.08494043 = fieldWeight in 1850, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1850)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Pages

280 S

Type

s

6.9652434E-4 = product of:
  0.0013930487 = sum of:
    0.0013930487 = product of:
      0.0027860973 = sum of:
        0.0027860973 = weight(_text_:s in 2926) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0027860973 = score(doc=2926,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.04100075 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03771094 = queryNorm
            0.06795235 = fieldWeight in 2926, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2926)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Rez. in: Mitt VÖB 62(2009) H.1, S.91-92 (M. Buzinkay)

Pages

VIII, 148 S

3.4826217E-4 = product of:
  6.9652434E-4 = sum of:
    6.9652434E-4 = product of:
      0.0013930487 = sum of:
        0.0013930487 = weight(_text_:s in 442) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0013930487 = score(doc=442,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.04100075 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03771094 = queryNorm
            0.033976175 = fieldWeight in 442, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=442)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Rez. in: JASIST 58(2007) no.4, S.608-609 (K.D. Desouza): "Richard Rogers explores the distinctiveness of the World Wide Web as a politically contested space where information searchers may encounter multiple explanations of reality. Sources of information on the Web are in constant competition with each other for attention. The attention a source receives will determine its prominence, the ability to be a provider of leading information, and its inclusion in authoritative spaces. Rogers explores the politics behind evaluating sources that are collected and housed on authoritative spaces. Information politics on the Web can be looked at in terms of frontend or back-end politics. Front-end politics is concerned with whether sources on the Web pay attention to principles of inclusivity, fairness, and scope of representation in how information is presented, while back-end politics examines the logic behind how search engines or portals select and index information. Concerning front-end politics, Rogers questions the various versions of reality one can derive from examining information on the Web, especially when issues of information inclusivity and scope of representation are toiled with. In addition, Rogers is concerned with how back-end politics are being controlled by dominant forces of the market (i.e., the more an organization is willing to pay, the greater will be the site's visibility and prominence in authoritative spaces), regardless of whether the information presented on the site justifies such a placement. In the book, Rogers illustrates the issues involved in back-end and front-end politics (though heavily slanted on front-end politics) using vivid cases, all of which are derived from his own research. The main thrust is the exploration of how various "information instruments," defined as "a digital and analytical means of recording (capturing) and subsequently reading indications of states of defined information streams (p. 19)," help capture the politics of the Web. Rogers employs four specific instruments (Lay Decision Support System, Issue Barometer, Web Issue Index of Civil Society, and Election Issue Tracker), which are covered in detail in core chapters of the book (Chapter 2-Chapter 5). The book is comprised of six chapters, with Chapter 1 being the traditional introduction and Chapter 6 being a summary of the major concepts discussed.

Pages

xi, 200 S