Search (12 results, page 1 of 1)

0.04945602 = product of:
  0.09891204 = sum of:
    0.09891204 = sum of:
      0.056415144 = weight(_text_:research in 1540) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.056415144 = score(doc=1540,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = queryNorm
          0.37825575 = fieldWeight in 1540, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1540)
      0.042496894 = weight(_text_:22 in 1540) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042496894 = score(doc=1540,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18306525 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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

0.035352234 = product of:
  0.07070447 = sum of:
    0.07070447 = sum of:
      0.028207572 = weight(_text_:research in 3460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.028207572 = score(doc=3460,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = queryNorm
          0.18912788 = fieldWeight in 3460, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3460)
      0.042496894 = weight(_text_:22 in 3460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042496894 = score(doc=3460,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18306525 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = 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)

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

0.015547963 = product of:
  0.031095926 = sum of:
    0.031095926 = product of:
      0.06219185 = sum of:
        0.06219185 = weight(_text_:research in 1624) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06219185 = score(doc=1624,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.41698778 = fieldWeight in 1624, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1624)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.012394927 = product of:
  0.024789855 = sum of:
    0.024789855 = product of:
      0.04957971 = sum of:
        0.04957971 = weight(_text_:22 in 1492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04957971 = score(doc=1492,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18306525 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 9.2014 18:56:46

0.010624223 = product of:
  0.021248447 = sum of:
    0.021248447 = product of:
      0.042496894 = sum of:
        0.042496894 = weight(_text_:22 in 1821) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042496894 = score(doc=1821,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18306525 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

3. 5.1997 8:44:22

0.010624223 = product of:
  0.021248447 = sum of:
    0.021248447 = product of:
      0.042496894 = sum of:
        0.042496894 = weight(_text_:22 in 2358) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042496894 = score(doc=2358,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18306525 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

17. 2.2018 16:50:22

0.009972882 = product of:
  0.019945765 = sum of:
    0.019945765 = product of:
      0.03989153 = sum of:
        0.03989153 = weight(_text_:research in 3782) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03989153 = score(doc=3782,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.2674672 = fieldWeight in 3782, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3782)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

With the rise of Wikipedia as a first-stop source for scientific information, it is important to understand whether Wikipedia draws upon the research that scientists value most. Here we identify the 250 most heavily used journals in each of 26 research fields (4,721 journals, 19.4M articles) indexed by the Scopus database, and test whether topic, academic status, and accessibility make articles from these journals more or less likely to be referenced on Wikipedia. We find that a journal's academic status (impact factor) and accessibility (open access policy) both strongly increase the probability of it being referenced on Wikipedia. Controlling for field and impact factor, the odds that an open access journal is referenced on the English Wikipedia are 47% higher compared to paywall journals. These findings provide evidence is that a major consequence of open access policies is to significantly amplify the diffusion of science, through an intermediary like Wikipedia, to a broad audience.

0.007051893 = product of:
  0.014103786 = sum of:
    0.014103786 = product of:
      0.028207572 = sum of:
        0.028207572 = weight(_text_:research in 483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028207572 = score(doc=483,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.18912788 = fieldWeight in 483, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=483)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The open content creation process has proven itself to be a powerful and influential way of developing text-based content, as demonstrated by the success of Wikipedia and related sites. Distributed individuals independently edit, revise, or refine content, thereby creating knowledge artifacts of considerable breadth and quality. Our study explores the mechanisms that control and guide the content creation process and develops an understanding of open content governance. The repertory grid method is employed to systematically capture the experiences of individuals involved in the open content creation process and to determine the relative importance of the diverse control and guiding mechanisms. Our findings illustrate the important control and guiding mechanisms and highlight the multifaceted nature of open content governance. A range of governance mechanisms is discussed with regard to the varied levels of formality, the different loci of authority, and the diverse interaction environments involved. Limitations and opportunities for future research are provided.

0.006260384 = product of:
  0.012520768 = sum of:
    0.012520768 = product of:
      0.025041535 = sum of:
        0.025041535 = weight(_text_:22 in 2171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025041535 = score(doc=2171,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18306525 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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

0.005876578 = product of:
  0.011753156 = sum of:
    0.011753156 = product of:
      0.023506312 = sum of:
        0.023506312 = weight(_text_:research in 3688) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023506312 = score(doc=3688,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.15760657 = fieldWeight in 3688, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3688)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The purpose of this research was to establish an upper bound on finding answers to health-related questions in MedlinePlus and other online resources. Seven reference librarians tested a set of protocols to determine whether it was possible to use the types and foci of the questions extracted from customer requests submitted to the National Library of Medicine to find authoritative answers to these questions. Librarians tested the protocols manually to determine if the process was sufficiently robust and accurate to later automate. Results indicated that the extracted terms provide enough information to find authoritative answers for about 60% of questions and that certain question types are more likely to result in authoritative answers than others. The question corpus and analysis performed for this project will inform automatic question answering systems, and could lead to suggestions for new content to include in MedlinePlus. This approach can serve as an example to researchers interested in methods of evaluating question answering tools and the contents of online databases.

0.005876578 = product of:
  0.011753156 = sum of:
    0.011753156 = product of:
      0.023506312 = sum of:
        0.023506312 = weight(_text_:research in 5471) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023506312 = score(doc=5471,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.15760657 = fieldWeight in 5471, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5471)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose Chemical databases have had a significant impact on the way scientists search for and use information. The purpose of this paper is to spark informed discussion and fuel debate on the issue of citations to chemical databases. Design/methodology/approach A citation analysis to four major chemical databases was undertaken to examine resource coverage and impact in the scientific literature. Two commercial databases (SciFinder and Reaxys) and two public databases (PubChem and ChemSpider) were analyzed using the "Cited Reference Search" in the Science Citation Index Expanded from the Web of Science (WoS) database. Citations to these databases between 2000 and 2016 (inclusive) were evaluated by document types and publication growth curves. A review of the distribution trends of chemical databases in peer-reviewed articles was conducted through a citation count analysis by country, organization, journal and WoS category. Findings In total, 862 scholarly articles containing a citation to one or more of the four databases were identified as only steadily increasing since 2000. The study determined that authors at academic institutions worldwide reference chemical databases in high-impact journals from notable publishers and mainly in the field of chemistry. Originality/value The research is a first attempt to evaluate the practice of citation to major chemical databases in the scientific literature. This paper proposes that citing chemical databases gives merit and recognition to the resources as well as credibility and validity to the scholarly communication process and also further discusses recommendations for citing and referencing databases.

0.00442676 = product of:
  0.00885352 = sum of:
    0.00885352 = product of:
      0.01770704 = sum of:
        0.01770704 = weight(_text_:22 in 4567) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01770704 = score(doc=4567,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18306525 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

3. 5.1997 8:44:22