Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0392624 = product of:
  0.13741839 = sum of:
    0.069988996 = weight(_text_:united in 9) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.069988996 = score(doc=9,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22812355 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04066292 = queryNorm
        0.30680305 = fieldWeight in 9, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=9)
    0.067429386 = weight(_text_:states in 9) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.067429386 = score(doc=9,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22391328 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04066292 = queryNorm
        0.30114064 = fieldWeight in 9, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=9)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

LCSH

Internet industry / United States

Subject

Internet industry / United States

0.022435656 = product of:
  0.07852479 = sum of:
    0.03999371 = weight(_text_:united in 1795) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03999371 = score(doc=1795,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22812355 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04066292 = queryNorm
        0.17531602 = fieldWeight in 1795, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1795)
    0.03853108 = weight(_text_:states in 1795) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03853108 = score(doc=1795,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22391328 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04066292 = queryNorm
        0.17208037 = fieldWeight in 1795, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1795)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Footnote

Rez. in: JASIST 55(2004) no.5, S.467-468 (W. Koehler): "Virtual Inequality is an important contribution to the digital divide debate. That debate takes two basic forms. One centers an the divide between the "information rich" developed countries and the "information poor" developing countries. The second is concerned with the rift between information "haves" and "have-nots" within countries. This book addresses the latter domain and is concerned with the digital divide in the United States. This book is the product of a cross-disciplinary collaboration. Mossberger and Tolbert are both members of the Kent State University political science department while Stansbury is an the Library and Information Science faculty. The book is extremely well documented. Perhaps the chapter an the democracy divide and e-government is the best done, reflecting the political science bent of two of the authors. E-government is very well covered. Unfortunately, e-commerce and e-education go virtually unmentioned. If e-government is important to defining the digital divide, then certainly e-commerce and e-education are as well. Mossberger, Tolbert, and Stansbury argue that the digital divide should be described as four different divides: the access divide, the skills divide, the economic opportunity divide, and the democratic divide. Each of these divides is developed in its own chapter. Each chapter draws well an the existing literature. The book is valuable if for no other reason than that it provides an excellent critique of the current state of the understanding of the digital divide in the United States. It is particularly good in its contrast of the approaches taken by the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations. Perhaps this is a function of the multidisciplinary strength of the book's authorship, for indeed it shows here. The access divide is defined along "connectivity" lines: who has access to digital technologies. The authors tonfirm the conventional wisdom that age and education are important predictors of in-home access, but they also argue that rate and ethnicity are also factors (pp. 32-33): Asian Americans have greatest access followed by whites, Latinos, and African Americans in that order. Most access the Internet from home or work, followed by friends' computers, libraries, and other access points. The skills divide is defined as technical competence and information literacy (p. 38). Variation was found along technical competence for age, education, affluence, rate, and ethnicity, but not gender (p. 47). The authors conclude that for the most part the skills divide mirrors the access divide (p. 55). While they found no gender difference, they did find a gender preference for skills acquisition: males prefer a more impersonal delivery ("online help and tutorials") while females prefer more personal instruction (p. 56).

0.0027825988 = product of:
  0.01947819 = sum of:
    0.01947819 = product of:
      0.03895638 = sum of:
        0.03895638 = weight(_text_:22 in 145) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03895638 = score(doc=145,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14239462 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04066292 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 145, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=145)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

20.12.2006 18:22:32

Isbn

3-936931-22-4

0.0011341257 = product of:
  0.00793888 = sum of:
    0.00793888 = product of:
      0.01587776 = sum of:
        0.01587776 = weight(_text_:design in 797) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01587776 = score(doc=797,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15288728 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04066292 = queryNorm
            0.10385271 = fieldWeight in 797, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=797)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

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.