Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.032910656 = product of:
  0.06582131 = sum of:
    0.06582131 = product of:
      0.13164262 = sum of:
        0.13164262 = weight(_text_:media in 2354) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13164262 = score(doc=2354,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.24036849 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051318336 = queryNorm
            0.54767007 = fieldWeight in 2354, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2354)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In Digital Methods, Richard Rogers proposes a methodological outlook for social and cultural scholarly research on the Web that seeks to move Internet research beyond the study of online culture. It is not a toolkit for Internet research, or operating instructions for a software package; it deals with broader questions. How can we study social media to learn something about society rather than about social media use? How can hyperlinks reveal not just the value of a Web site but the politics of association? Rogers proposes repurposing Web-native techniques for research into cultural change and societal conditions. We can learn to reapply such "methods of the medium" as crawling and crowd sourcing, PageRank and similar algorithms, tag clouds and other visualizations; we can learn how they handle hits, likes, tags, date stamps, and other Web-native objects. By "thinking along" with devices and the objects they handle, digital research methods can follow the evolving methods of the medium. Rogers uses this new methodological outlook to examine the findings of inquiries into 9/11 search results, the recognition of climate change skeptics by climate-change-related Web sites, the events surrounding the Srebrenica massacre according to Dutch, Serbian, Bosnian, and Croatian Wikipedias, presidential candidates' social media "friends," and the censorship of the Iranian Web. With Digital Methods, Rogers introduces a new vision and method for Internet research and at the same time applies them to the Web's objects of study, from tiny particles (hyperlinks) to large masses (social media).

Content

The end of the virtual : digital methods -- The link and the politics of Web space -- The website as archived object -- Googlization and the inculpable engine -- Search as research -- National Web studies -- Social media and post-demographics -- Wikipedia as cultural reference -- After cyberspace : big data, small data.

LCSH

Social media / Research

Subject

Social media / Research

0.017591486 = product of:
  0.03518297 = sum of:
    0.03518297 = product of:
      0.07036594 = sum of:
        0.07036594 = weight(_text_:media in 6056) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07036594 = score(doc=6056,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.24036849 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051318336 = queryNorm
            0.29274195 = fieldWeight in 6056, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=6056)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

LCSH

Digital media / Social aspects

Subject

Digital media / Social aspects

0.017591486 = product of:
  0.03518297 = sum of:
    0.03518297 = product of:
      0.07036594 = sum of:
        0.07036594 = weight(_text_:media in 4163) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07036594 = score(doc=4163,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.24036849 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051318336 = queryNorm
            0.29274195 = fieldWeight in 4163, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4163)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

RSWK

Social Media

Subject

Social Media

0.010884177 = product of:
  0.021768354 = sum of:
    0.021768354 = product of:
      0.043536708 = sum of:
        0.043536708 = weight(_text_:media in 334) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043536708 = score(doc=334,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24036849 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051318336 = queryNorm
            0.18112485 = fieldWeight in 334, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=334)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In this title, a leading philosopher of the internet explains how knowledge and expertise can still work - and even grow stronger - in an age when the internet has made topics simply Too Big to Know. Knowing used to be so straightforward. If we wanted to know something we looked it up, asked an expert, gathered the facts, weighted the possibilities, and honed in on the best answer ourselves. But, ironically, with the advent of the internet and the limitless information it contains, we're less sure about what we know, who knows what, or even what it means to know at all. Knowledge, it would appear, is in crisis. And yet, while its very foundations seem to be collapsing, human knowledge has grown in previously unimaginable ways, and in inconceivable directions, in the Internet age. We fact-check the news media more closely and publicly than ever before. Science is advancing at an unheard of pace thanks to new collaborative techniques and new ways to find patterns in vast amounts of data. Businesses are finding expertise in every corner of their organization, and across the broad swath of their stakeholders. We are in a crisis of knowledge at the same time that we are in an epochal exaltation of knowledge. In "Too Big to Know", Internet philosopher David Weinberger explains that, rather than a systemic collapse, the Internet era represents a fundamental change in the methods we have for understanding the world around us. Weinberger argues that our notions of expertise - what it is, how it works, and how it is cultivated - are out of date, rooted in our pre-networked culture and assumptions. For thousands of years, we've relied upon a reductionist process of filtering, winnowing, and otherwise reducing the complex world to something more manageable in order to understand it. Back then, an expert was someone who had mastered a particular, well-defined domain. Now, we live in an age when topics are blown apart and stitched together by momentary interests, diverse points of view, and connections ranging from the insightful to the perverse. Weinberger shows that, while the limits of our own paper-based tools have historically prevented us from achieving our full capacity of knowledge, we can now be as smart as our new medium allows - but we will be smart differently. For the new medium is a network, and that network changes our oldest, most basic strategy of knowing. Rather than knowing-by-reducing, we are now knowing-by-including. Indeed, knowledge now is best thought of not as the content of books or even of minds, but as the way the network works. Knowledge will never be the same - not for science, not for business, not for education, not for government, not for any of us. As Weinberger makes clear, to make sense of this new system of knowledge, we need - and smart companies are developing - networks that are themselves experts. Full of rich and sometimes surprising examples from history, politics, business, philosophy, and science, "Too Big to Know" describes how the very foundations of knowledge have been overturned, and what this revolution means for our future.

0.0077744117 = product of:
  0.015548823 = sum of:
    0.015548823 = product of:
      0.031097647 = sum of:
        0.031097647 = weight(_text_:media in 797) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031097647 = score(doc=797,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24036849 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051318336 = queryNorm
            0.12937489 = fieldWeight in 797, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=797)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Andrew Keen is ein englisch-amerikanischer Schriftsteller, Absolvent der Universitäten von London, Berkeley y Sarajevo, Professor an den Universitäten von Tufts, Northeastern und Massachusetts und Gründer des Online-Unternehmens Audiocafe, wer gegenwärtig über die Massenmedien schreibt. Dieses Buch, veröffentlicht in USA in Juni 2007, kursierte schon zwischen den Teilnehmern der Konferenz des TED (Technology Entertainment Design) in Monterrey und es ist eine unerbittliche Kritik des Web 2.0. Ein Artikel in der Weekly Standard ging voraus.. Das Web 2.0 ist nicht so sehr eine Aktualisierung des Internets aus technischer Sicht sondern ein Kolloquialismus, das von O'Reilly Media, ein Internet Kommunikationsunternehmen, während eines der unternehmensinternen Konferenzzyklen geschaffen wurde. Es bezieht sich vor allem auf die Art, in der das Internet benutzt wird. Web 2.0 bezieht sich darüber hinaus auf die Methoden, die die Zusammenarbeit zwischen den Benutzern nachdrücklich betonen und den Besucher oder Kunden einer Seite in Mitverfasser/Co-autor transformieren. Beispiele von Web 2.0 können sein: die Rezensionen in Amazon, die online-offene Enzyklopädie Wikipedia, blogs mit Beteiligung der Leser, Verlage wie blurb.com, welche für jeden Autor die Veröffentlichung seines Buches ermöglichen, u.a. Das Web 2.0 erlaubt einerseits eine größere Interaktivität zwischen Schöpfern und Konsumenten der Kultur- Online, anderseits hat die intellektuelle Piraterie stimuliert. Für den Autor ist es klar, dass genauso wichtig die Mitbestimmung für die politischen Demokratie ist, ist in der Welt der Wissenschaft das, was die Verfechter des Web 2.0 "Diktatur der Experten" nennen. Hundert Wikipedia Mitarbeiter werden nie einen authentischen Techniker, Wissenschaftler oder Historiker ersetzen können. Die Amateurs Blogs können sogar die Texte von Journalisten ersetzen, fehlt es ihnen jedoch die Seriosität dieser. An der einen Seite, stehen die Journalisten, die reisen, befragen, untersuchen, erforschen. An der anderen stehen viel zu oft Leute, die nicht verifizierte Information aus sekundären Quellen entnehmen und veröffentlichen. Es ist nicht nur, dass sie an Seriosität mangeln, sondern auch an Verantwortung. Die anonyme Information kann auch falsch oder fehlerhaft sein, aber ist vor allem verantwortungslose Information, für die, die Verfasser selten zur Verantwortung gezogen werden, egal wie schädlich ihre Ergebnisse sind. Anders geschieht es mit der gedruckten Presse, weil sie rundweg reguliert ist.