Search (13 results, page 1 of 1)

0.051703054 = product of:
  0.10340611 = sum of:
    0.08457688 = weight(_text_:social in 3460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08457688 = score(doc=3460,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.45785317 = fieldWeight in 3460, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3460)
    0.018829225 = product of:
      0.03765845 = sum of:
        0.03765845 = weight(_text_:22 in 3460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03765845 = score(doc=3460,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3460, 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=3460)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This study explores how and why people participate in collaborative knowledge-building practices in the context of Wikipedia. Based on a survey of 223 Wikipedians, this study examines the relationship between motivations, internal cognitive beliefs, social-relational factors, and knowledge-sharing intentions. Results from structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis reveal that attitudes, knowledge self-efficacy, and a basic norm of generalized reciprocity have significant and direct relationships with knowledge-sharing intentions. Altruism (an intrinsic motivator) is positively related to attitudes toward knowledge sharing, whereas reputation (an extrinsic motivator) is not a significant predictor of attitude. The study also reveals that a social-relational factor, namely, a sense of belonging, is related to knowledge-sharing intentions indirectly through different motivational and social factors such as altruism, subjective norms, knowledge self-efficacy, and generalized reciprocity. Implications for future research and practice are discussed.

Date

1. 6.2010 10:13:22

0.03806394 = product of:
  0.15225576 = sum of:
    0.15225576 = weight(_text_:social in 4916) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15225576 = score(doc=4916,freq=28.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.8242298 = fieldWeight in 4916, product of:
          5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
            28.0 = termFreq=28.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4916)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Many information portals are adding social features with hopes of enhancing the overall user experience. Invitations to join and welcome pages that highlight these social features are expected to encourage use and participation. While this approach is widespread and seems plausible, the effect of providing and highlighting social features remains to be tested. We studied the effects of emphasizing social features on users' response to invitations, their decisions to join, their willingness to provide profile information, and their engagement with the portal's social features. The results of a quasi-experiment found no significant effect of social emphasis in invitations on receivers' responsiveness. However, users receiving invitations highlighting social benefits were less likely to join the portal and provide profile information. Social emphasis in the initial welcome page for the site also was found to have a significant effect on whether individuals joined the portal, how much profile information they provided and shared, and how much they engaged with social features on the site. Unexpectedly, users who were welcomed in a social manner were less likely to join and provided less profile information; they also were less likely to engage with social features of the portal. This suggests that even in online contexts where social activity is an increasingly common feature, highlighting the presence of social features may not always be the optimal presentation strategy.

0.025098871 = product of:
  0.100395486 = sum of:
    0.100395486 = sum of:
      0.06273703 = weight(_text_:aspects in 1540) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06273703 = score(doc=1540,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046325076 = queryNorm
          0.29962775 = fieldWeight in 1540, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1540)
      0.03765845 = weight(_text_:22 in 1540) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03765845 = score(doc=1540,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046325076 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1540, 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=1540)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Hundreds of scholarly studies have investigated various aspects of Wikipedia. Although a number of literature reviews have provided overviews of this vast body of research, none has specifically focused on the readers of Wikipedia and issues concerning its readership. In this systematic literature review, we review 99 studies to synthesize current knowledge regarding the readership of Wikipedia and provide an analysis of research methods employed. The scholarly research has found that Wikipedia is popular not only for lighter topics such as entertainment but also for more serious topics such as health and legal information. Scholars, librarians, and students are common users, and Wikipedia provides a unique opportunity for educating students in digital literacy. We conclude with a summary of key findings, implications for researchers, and implications for the Wikipedia community.

Date

18.11.2014 13:22:03

0.017620182 = product of:
  0.07048073 = sum of:
    0.07048073 = weight(_text_:social in 3437) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07048073 = score(doc=3437,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.3815443 = fieldWeight in 3437, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3437)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This study evaluates how well the authors of Wikipedia history articles adhere to the site's policy of assuring verifiability through citations. It does so by examining the references and citations of a subset of country histories. The findings paint a dismal picture. Not only are many claims not verified through citations, those that are suffer from the choice of references used. Many of these are from only a few US government Websites or news media and few are to academic journal material. Given these results, one response would be to declare Wikipedia unsuitable for serious reference work. But another option emerges when we jettison technological determinism and look at Wikipedia as a product of a wider social context. Key to this context is a world in which information is bottled up as commodities requiring payment for access. Equally important is the problematic assumption that texts are undifferentiated bearers of knowledge. Those involved in instructional programs can draw attention to the social nature of texts to counter these assumptions and by so doing create an awareness for a new generation of Wikipedians and Wikipedia users of the need to evaluate texts (and hence citations) in light of the social context of their production and use.

0.014386819 = product of:
  0.057547275 = sum of:
    0.057547275 = weight(_text_:social in 5093) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057547275 = score(doc=5093,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.3115296 = fieldWeight in 5093, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5093)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Controversy is a complex concept that has been attracting attention of scholars from diverse fields. In the era of Internet and social media, detecting controversy and controversial concepts by the means of automatic methods is especially important. Web searchers could be alerted when the contents they consume are controversial or when they attempt to acquire information on disputed topics. Presenting users with the indications and explanations of the controversy should offer them chance to see the "wider picture" rather than letting them obtain one-sided views. In this work we first introduce a formal model of controversy as the basis of computational approaches to detecting controversial concepts. Then we propose a classification based method for automatic detection of controversial articles and categories in Wikipedia. Next, we demonstrate how to use the obtained results for the estimation of the controversy level of search queries. The proposed method can be incorporated into search engines as a component responsible for detection of queries related to controversial topics. The method is independent of the search engine's retrieval and search results recommendation algorithms, and is therefore unaffected by a possible filter bubble. Our approach can be also applied in Wikipedia or other knowledge bases for supporting the detection of controversy and content maintenance. Finally, we believe that our results could be useful for social science researchers for understanding the complex nature of controversy and in fostering their studies.

0.010173016 = product of:
  0.040692065 = sum of:
    0.040692065 = weight(_text_:social in 4080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040692065 = score(doc=4080,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.22028469 = fieldWeight in 4080, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4080)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Das Web 2.0 hat einen Paradigmenwechsel im Umgang mit Informationen und damit eng verbunden im Wissenserwerb eingeleitet. Theoretisch gesehen hat jeder offenen Zugang zu vielfältigen Informationen und kann gleichzeitig selbst Inhalte beisteuern - z.B. in Sozialen Netzwerken, in Weblogs oder Wikis - und Websites oder andere Dokumente (Videos, Slideshows o.ä.) veröffentlichen und mit anderen Nutzern teilen. Dieser Demokratisierungsprozess von Wissensproduktion, -kommunikation und -erwerb ist allerdings nicht frei von Kontroversen. Das verstärkte Nebeneinander von sachlich richtiger und relevanter Information einerseits und Belanglosigkeiten andererseits ruft auch Gegner auf den Plan. Sie sprechen von einem Information Overkill und befürchten den Niedergang der klassischen Bildung. Führen freie Wissenszugänge im Netz tatsächlich zu weniger Bildung? Was macht eine Website zu einer zuverlässigen und vertrauenswürdigen Quelle? Wie können aus der Fülle von Webressourcen die qualitativ hochwertigen herausgefiltert werden? Welchen Beitrag kann dabei Social Software leisten? Welches sind die Konstituenten einer Informationskompetenz 2.0, über die User verfügen sollten, um mit vorgefundenen Ressourcen adäquat umgehen zu können? Und inwiefern sind Bibliotheken - die sich ja zunehmend als Teaching Libraries verstehen - hier gefordert? Auf diese Fragen versucht das vorliegende Buch Antworten zu geben. Der Fokus liegt auf dem Umgang mit Wissensressourcen im Web 2.0, wobei ebenso theoretische wie praktische Implikationen berücksichtigt und ausgewählte Evaluierungsansätze hinsichtlich ihrer praktischen Anwendbarkeit für die User diskutiert werden.

0.010173016 = product of:
  0.040692065 = sum of:
    0.040692065 = weight(_text_:social in 4941) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040692065 = score(doc=4941,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.22028469 = fieldWeight in 4941, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4941)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Using the Arts & Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI) 2008, we apply mapping techniques previously developed for mapping journal structures in the Science and Social Sciences Citation Indices. Citation relations among the 110,718 records were aggregated at the level of 1,157 journals specific to the A&HCI, and the journal structures are questioned on whether a cognitive structure can be reconstructed and visualized. Both cosine-normalization (bottom up) and factor analysis (top down) suggest a division into approximately 12 subsets. The relations among these subsets are explored using various visualization techniques. However, we were not able to retrieve this structure using the Institute for Scientific Information Subject Categories, including the 25 categories that are specific to the A&HCI. We discuss options for validation such as against the categories of the Humanities Indicators of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the panel structure of the European Reference Index for the Humanities, and compare our results with the curriculum organization of the Humanities Section of the College of Letters and Sciences of the University of California at Los Angeles as an example of institutional organization.

0.009242038 = product of:
  0.036968153 = sum of:
    0.036968153 = product of:
      0.073936306 = sum of:
        0.073936306 = weight(_text_:aspects in 1624) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.073936306 = score(doc=1624,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.35311472 = fieldWeight in 1624, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1624)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Wikipedia may be the best-developed attempt thus far to gather all human knowledge in one place. Its accomplishments in this regard have made it a point of inquiry for researchers from different fields of knowledge. A decade of research has thrown light on many aspects of the Wikipedia community, its processes, and its content. However, due to the variety of fields inquiring about Wikipedia and the limited synthesis of the extensive research, there is little consensus on many aspects of Wikipedia's content as an encyclopedic collection of human knowledge. This study addresses the issue by systematically reviewing 110 peer-reviewed publications on Wikipedia content, summarizing the current findings, and highlighting the major research trends. Two major streams of research are identified: the quality of Wikipedia content (including comprehensiveness, currency, readability, and reliability) and the size of Wikipedia. Moreover, we present the key research trends in terms of the domains of inquiry, research design, data source, and data gathering methods. This review synthesizes scholarly understanding of Wikipedia content and paves the way for future studies.

0.005491857 = product of:
  0.021967428 = sum of:
    0.021967428 = product of:
      0.043934856 = sum of:
        0.043934856 = weight(_text_:22 in 1492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043934856 = score(doc=1492,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1492, 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=1492)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 9.2014 18:56:46

0.004707306 = product of:
  0.018829225 = sum of:
    0.018829225 = product of:
      0.03765845 = sum of:
        0.03765845 = weight(_text_:22 in 1821) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03765845 = score(doc=1821,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1821, 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=1821)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

3. 5.1997 8:44:22

0.004707306 = product of:
  0.018829225 = sum of:
    0.018829225 = product of:
      0.03765845 = sum of:
        0.03765845 = weight(_text_:22 in 2358) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03765845 = score(doc=2358,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2358, 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=2358)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

17. 2.2018 16:50:22

0.0027738067 = product of:
  0.011095227 = sum of:
    0.011095227 = product of:
      0.022190453 = sum of:
        0.022190453 = weight(_text_:22 in 2171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022190453 = score(doc=2171,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.13679022 = fieldWeight in 2171, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2171)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Der neue Herausgeber des Brockhaus, ein Tochterverlag von Bertelsmann, hat unterdessen angekündigt, zum gedruckten Lexikon zurückzukehren. Etwa Anfang 2015 soll die 22. Auflage erscheinen. In Zeiten des virtuellen Informationsoverkills gebe es einen Bedarf an Orientierung, an Relevanzvorgaben, sagt Geschäftsführer Christoph Hünermann. Ausgerechnet Bertelsmann druckte 2008 ein knapp 1 000 Seiten langes Wikipedia-Lexikon mit den 50 000 meist gesuchten Begriffen. Eine Experten-Redaktion überprüfte die Einträge sicherheitshalber zuvor - soll allerdings kaum Fehler gefunden haben."

Source

Frankfurter Rundschau. Nr.76 vom 29.3.2012, S.22-23

0.0019613777 = product of:
  0.007845511 = sum of:
    0.007845511 = product of:
      0.015691021 = sum of:
        0.015691021 = weight(_text_:22 in 4567) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015691021 = score(doc=4567,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.09672529 = fieldWeight in 4567, 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=4567)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

3. 5.1997 8:44:22