Search (98 results, page 1 of 5)

0.07820139 = product of:
  0.10426852 = sum of:
    0.051698197 = weight(_text_:digital in 3721) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051698197 = score(doc=3721,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.26148933 = fieldWeight in 3721, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3721)
    0.022971334 = weight(_text_:library in 3721) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022971334 = score(doc=3721,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.17430481 = fieldWeight in 3721, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3721)
    0.029598987 = product of:
      0.059197973 = sum of:
        0.059197973 = weight(_text_:project in 3721) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.059197973 = score(doc=3721,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.27981415 = fieldWeight in 3721, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3721)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

A selection of representative definitions of information is drawn from information science and related disciplines, and discussed and compared. Defining information remains such a contested project that any claim to present a unified, singular vision of the topic would be disingenuous. Seven categories of definitions are described: Communicatory or semiotic; activity-based (i.e., information as event); propositional; structural; social; multitype; and deconstructionist. The impact of Norbert Wiener and Claude Shannon is discussed, as well as the widespread influence of Karl Popper's ideas. The data-information-knowledge-wisdom (DIKW) continuum is also addressed. Work of these authors is reviewed: Marcia J. Bates, Gregory Bateson, B.C. Brookes, Michael Buckland, Ian Cornelius, Ronald Day, Richard Derr, Brenda Dervin, Fred Dretske, Jason Farradane, Christopher Fox, Bernd Frohmann, Jonathan Furner, J.A. Goguen, Robert Losee, A.D. Madden, D.M. McKay, Doede Nauta, A.D. Pratt, Frederick Thompson.

Content

Digital unter: http://dx.doi.org/10.1081/E-ELIS3-120045519. Vgl.: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/book/10.1081/E-ELIS3.

Source

Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed.: M.J. Bates

0.07118432 = product of:
  0.14236864 = sum of:
    0.10446788 = weight(_text_:digital in 4479) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10446788 = score(doc=4479,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.5283983 = fieldWeight in 4479, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4479)
    0.03790077 = weight(_text_:library in 4479) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03790077 = score(doc=4479,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.28758827 = fieldWeight in 4479, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4479)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The concepts of 'information literacy' and 'digital literacy' are described, and reviewed, by way of a literature survey and analysis. Related concepts, including computer literacy, library literacy, network literacy, Internet literacy and hyper-literacy are also discussed, and their relationships elucidated. After a general introduction, the paper begins with the basic concept of 'literacy', which is then expanded to include newer forms of literacy, more suitable for complex information environments. Some of these, for example library, media and computer literacies, are based largely on specific skills, but have some extension beyond them. They lead togeneral concepts, such as information literacy and digital literacy which are based on knowledge, perceptions and attitudes, though reliant on the simpler skills-based literacies

0.063073725 = product of:
  0.12614745 = sum of:
    0.030628446 = weight(_text_:library in 3008) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030628446 = score(doc=3008,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.23240642 = fieldWeight in 3008, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3008)
    0.095519006 = sum of:
      0.06835594 = weight(_text_:project in 3008) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06835594 = score(doc=3008,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050121464 = queryNorm
          0.32310158 = fieldWeight in 3008, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3008)
      0.027163066 = weight(_text_:22 in 3008) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027163066 = score(doc=3008,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050121464 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3008, 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=3008)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The project Information Pricing was carried out during the summer semester 2004 by four students and two lecturers. Aim of the project was to develop a new product- and pricing concept for the research centre of the Public Library Cologne. The intention was to increase its competitiveness, especially in the business customer segment. The initiating factor for the project was the significant decrease in requests from 1997 to 2001. This paper describes the development of different attributes of information, analysing various pricing concepts of private and public information providers as well as the development of a pricing concept which is aligned to the requirements and performance of the research centre. The final result was an improved pricing system for an enhanced range of products. The first step was getting more familiar with the characteristics of information and the methods that can be used to measure the value of information. One of the key issues to consider is the value of information for a customer and the question how this value can be charged. In order to be capable of evaluating all issues of information pricing and to develop a solid pricing system, it was essential to analyse and assess pricing modules based on their intension of use. For example, the differentiation of the pricing concept with regard to certain user segments like business or private users as well as members and non-members. Another option is to define prices dependant on the requested response times for research tasks and thereby reflect the urgency of those tasks directly in the pricing concept. Furthermore, the qualitative and quantitative differentiation of information has to be taken into account. All described approaches - and also combinations of these - should be considered when developing a new pricing system. It is also important to recognize the special role of the research centre as a part of the public library. Libraries fulfil a public contract for their users. In this case it has to be ensured that people of all social backgrounds have the chance to gain access to all kind of information. While presenting results to the Public library Cologne some problems arose, mainly the gap between theoretical and practical feasibility. The final result was a practical pricing system, which is easy to implement for the research centre and which is described in the paper.

Date

22. 7.2009 9:24:59

0.05645274 = product of:
  0.11290548 = sum of:
    0.07461992 = weight(_text_:digital in 4736) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07461992 = score(doc=4736,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.37742734 = fieldWeight in 4736, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4736)
    0.03828556 = weight(_text_:library in 4736) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03828556 = score(doc=4736,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.29050803 = fieldWeight in 4736, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4736)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Purpose - To establish that, in the opinion of the author, there is a need for an information literacy skill set for citizens of the modern information society, and that the role of library and information professionals may have to evolve, from intermediaries to facilitators and trainers. Design/methodology/approach - An opinion piece based on the author's experiences in digital library research, as a citizen of an information society and as a worker in the knowledge economy. Findings - That citizens of information societies have direct access to a bewildering range of digital information resources. Librarians and information professionals face less demand for their traditional role as intermediaries. Information literacy is defined and described as a vital skill set for citizens of information societies. It is suggested that librarians and information professionals are needed to pass on these skills to citizens at all levels of society for economic, social and personal empowerment. Research limitations/implications - The paper reflects the perspective of the author - it is not supported by quantitative data (notoriously difficult to collect on information literacy). Practical implications - Provides suggestions on how the library and information profession can retain their relevance to society in the networked age. Originality/value - This is the particular viewpoint of the author, with a diverse range of examples cited to back up the thrust of the paper. It describes how information literacy is required to interact effectively with the digital environment on an emotional as well as an intellectual level.

Source

Library review. 54(2005) no.4, S.218-222

0.055655383 = product of:
  0.111310765 = sum of:
    0.077067114 = weight(_text_:digital in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.077067114 = score(doc=862,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.38980526 = fieldWeight in 862, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=862)
    0.034243647 = weight(_text_:library in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034243647 = score(doc=862,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.25983828 = fieldWeight in 862, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=862)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to point out that past models of information ownership may not carry over to the age of digital information. The fact that public ownership of information (for example, by means of national and public library collections) created social benefits in the past does not mean that a greater degree of private sector involvement in information provision in the knowledge society of today is synonymous with an abandonment of past ideals of social information provision. Design/methodology/approach - A brief review of recent issues in digital preservation and national electronic heritage management, with an examination of the public-private sector characteristics of each issue. Findings - Private companies and philanthropic endeavours focussing on the business of digital information provision have done some things - which in the past we have associated with the public domain - remarkably well. It is probably fair to say that this has occurred against the pattern of expectation of the library profession. Research limitations/implications - The premise of this paper is that LIS research aimed at predicting future patterns of problem solving in information work should avoid the narrow use of patterns of public-private relationships inherited from a previous, print-based information order. Practical implications - This paper suggests practical ways in which the library and information profession can improve digital library services by looking to form creative partnerships with private sector problem solvers. Originality/value - This paper argues that the LIS profession should not take a doctrinaire approach to commercial company involvement in "our" information world. Librarians should facilitate collaboration between all parties, both public and private, to create original solutions to contemporary information provision problems. In this way we can help create pragmatic, non-doctrinaire solutions that really do work for the citizens of our contemporary information society.

Source

Library review. 56(2007) no.8, S.659-665

0.049779683 = product of:
  0.09955937 = sum of:
    0.068930924 = weight(_text_:digital in 3820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.068930924 = score(doc=3820,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.34865242 = fieldWeight in 3820, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3820)
    0.030628446 = weight(_text_:library in 3820) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030628446 = score(doc=3820,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.23240642 = fieldWeight in 3820, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3820)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Content

Digital unter: http://dx.doi.org/10.1081/E-ELIS3-120043462. Vgl.: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/book/10.1081/E-ELIS3.

Source

Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed.: M.J. Bates

0.03883813 = product of:
  0.07767626 = sum of:
    0.030628446 = weight(_text_:library in 136) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030628446 = score(doc=136,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.23240642 = fieldWeight in 136, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=136)
    0.047047812 = product of:
      0.094095625 = sum of:
        0.094095625 = weight(_text_:22 in 136) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.094095625 = score(doc=136,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.536106 = fieldWeight in 136, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=136)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Date

22. 2.2007 18:56:23
22. 2.2007 19:22:13

Source

Emerging frameworks and methods: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on the Conceptions of Library and Information Science (CoLIS4), Seattle, WA, July 21 - 25, 2002. Eds.: Fidel, R., H. Bruce, P. Ingwersen u. P. Vakkari

0.037838966 = product of:
  0.050451957 = sum of:
    0.021540914 = weight(_text_:digital in 3686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021540914 = score(doc=3686,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.10895388 = fieldWeight in 3686, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3686)
    0.016578136 = weight(_text_:library in 3686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016578136 = score(doc=3686,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.12579368 = fieldWeight in 3686, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3686)
    0.012332911 = product of:
      0.024665821 = sum of:
        0.024665821 = weight(_text_:project in 3686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024665821 = score(doc=3686,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.116589226 = fieldWeight in 3686, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3686)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Footnote

Rez. in: JASIST 56(2005) no.9, S.1008-1009 (D.E. Agosto): "This second edition of Information Literacy: Essential Skills for the Information Age remains true to the first edition (published in 1998). The main changes involved the updating of educational standards discussed in the text, as well as the updating of the term history. Overall, this book serves as a detailed definition of the concept of information literacy and focuses heavily an presenting and discussing related state and national educational standards and policies. It is divided into 10 chapters, many of which contain examples of U.S. and international information literacy programs in a variety of educational settings. Chapter one offers a detailed definition of information literacy, as well as tracing the deviation of the term. The term was first introduced in 1974 by Paul Zurkowski in a proposal to the national Commission an Libraries and Information Science. Fifteen years later a special ALA committee derived the now generally accepted definition: "To be information literate requires a new set of skills. These include how to locate and use information needed for problem-solving and decision-making efficiently and effectively" (American Library Association, 1989, p. 11). Definitions for a number of related concepts are also offered, including definitions for visual literacy, media literacy, computer literacy, digital literacy, and network literacy. Although the authors do define these different subtypes of information literacy, they sidestep the argument over the definition of the more general term literacy, consequently avoiding the controversy over national and world illiteracy rates. Regardless of the actual rate of U.S. literacy (which varies radically with each different definition of "literacy"), basic literacy, i.e., basic reading and writing skills, still presents a formidable educational goal in the U.S. In fact, More than 5 million high-schoolers do not read well enough to understand their textbooks or other material written for their grade level. According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress, 26% of these students cannot read material many of us world deem essential for daily living, such as road signs, newspapers, and bus schedules. (Hock & Deshler, 2003, p. 27)
Chapter two delves more deeply into the historical evolution of the concept of information literacy, and chapter three summarizes selected information literacy research. Researchers generally agree that information literacy is a process, rather than a set of skills to be learned (despite the unfortunate use of the word "skills" in the ALA definition). Researchers also generally agree that information literacy should be taught across the curriculum, as opposed to limiting it to the library or any other single educational context or discipline. Chapter four discusses economic ties to information literacy, suggesting that countries with information literate populations will better succeed economically in the current and future information-based world economy. A recent report issued by the Basic Education Coalition, an umbrella group of 19 private and nongovernmental development and relief organizations, supports this claim based an meta-analysis of large bodies of data collected by the World Bank, the United Nations, and other international organizations. Teach a Child, Transform a Nation (Basic Education Coalition, 2004) concluded that no modern nation has achieved sustained economic growth without providing near universal basic education for its citizens. It also concluded that countries that improve their literacy rates by 20 to 30% sec subsequent GDP increases of 8 to 16%. In light of the Coalition's finding that one fourth of adults in the world's developing countries are unable to read or write, the goal of worldwide information literacy seems sadly unattainable for the present, a present in which even universal basic literacy is still a pipedream. Chapter live discusses information literacy across the curriculum as an interpretation of national standards. The many examples of school and university information literacy programs, standards, and policies detailed throughout the volume world be very useful to educators and administrators engaging in program planning and review. For example, the authors explain that economics standards included in the Goals 2000: Educate America Act are comprised of 20 benchmark content standards. They quote a two-pronged grade 12 benchmark that first entails students being able to discuss how a high school senior's working 20 hours a week while attending school might result in a reduced overall lifetime income, and second requires students to be able to describe how increasing the federal minimum wage might result in reduced income for some workers. The authors tie this benchmark to information literacy as follows: "Economic decision making requires complex thinking skills because the variables involved are interdependent.
Students need to use the whole range of information literacy skills to identify needed information, evaluate and analyze information, and use information for critical thinking and problem solving" (p. 81). Chapters six and seven address K-12 education and information literacy. The authors outline the restructuring necessary to make information literacy a basic part of the curriculum and emphasize resourcebased learning as crucial in teaching information literacy. The authors also discuss the implications of the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act to the teaching of information literacy in primary and secondary schools. Again they avoid controversy, this time by omitting analysis of the success or failure of the Act in promoting the teaching and learning of information literacy. Instead, these chapters provide a number of examples of information literacy programs in K-12 educational settings within the US. Examples range from information literacy guidelines developed by the California Technology Assistance Project to a discussion of home schoolers and information literacy. Throughout the 1990s, the information literacy movement began to filter up to higher education. Chapter eight discusses related standards and presents a number of examples of college-level information literacy programs, including programs at the University of Massachusetts, Kent State University, and Washington State University. Chapter nine deals with technology and information literacy. It tocuses an the teaching of technology use as process teaching and an the importance of context in technology education.
Lastly, chapter 10 considers possible future directions of the information literacy movement. The authors conclude "Our ability to be information literate depends an our willingness to be lifelong learners as we are challenged to master new, and as yet unknown, technologies that will surely alter the landscape of information in the future" (p. 177). Following the book's 10 chapters are a number of appendices that present information literacy standards and definitions, a timeline of the evolution of the information literacy movement, and a number of related bibliographies. Lead author Eisenberg is perhaps best known as the co-creator, with Bob Berkowitz, of the Big 6, an information literacy model. The model includes six components: Task Definition, Information Seeking Strategies, Location and Access, Use of Information, Synthesis, and Evaluation (Eisenberg, 2003). Throughout the book, Eisenberg and his co-authors show how the Big 6 model can be used to teach information literacy. For example, in chapter nine, "Technology and Information Literacy," they lay out each of the six model components, providing specific technological skills benchmarks for each, such as "Know the roles and computer expertise of the people working in the school library media center and elsewhere who might provide information or assistance" under step 3, "Location and Access" (p. 160). The many detailed descriptions of information literacy policies and programs that appear throughout the book make it most useful for educators, administrators, and policy makers involved in the teaching, planning, and development of information literacy programs, standards, and policies. Overall, this newly revised volume stands as one of the most comprehensive single available sources from which to begin a detailed investigation of the concept of information literacy."

0.0361197 = product of:
  0.0722394 = sum of:
    0.03828556 = weight(_text_:library in 2277) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03828556 = score(doc=2277,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.29050803 = fieldWeight in 2277, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2277)
    0.033953834 = product of:
      0.06790767 = sum of:
        0.06790767 = weight(_text_:22 in 2277) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06790767 = score(doc=2277,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2277, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2277)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Date

31. 7.2001 20:22:57

Source

Journal of education for library and information science. 41(2000) no.?, S.294-306

0.033654865 = product of:
  0.06730973 = sum of:
    0.04816695 = weight(_text_:digital in 1182) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04816695 = score(doc=1182,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.2436283 = fieldWeight in 1182, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1182)
    0.01914278 = weight(_text_:library in 1182) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01914278 = score(doc=1182,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.14525402 = fieldWeight in 1182, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1182)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Consider a sentence such as "the current price of tea in China is 35 cents per pound." In a library with millions of books we might find many statements of the above form that we could capture today with relatively simple rules: rather than pursuing every variation of a statement, programs can wait, like predators at a water hole, for their informational prey to reappear in a standard linguistic pattern. We can make inferences from sentences such as "NAME1 born at NAME2 in DATE" that NAME more likely than not represents a person and NAME a place and then convert the statement into a proposition about a person born at a given place and time. The changing price of tea in China, pedestrian birth and death dates, or other basic statements may not be truth and beauty in the Phaedrus, but a digital library that could plot the prices of various commodities in different markets over time, plot the various lifetimes of individuals, or extract and classify many events would be very useful. Services such as the Syllabus Finder1 and H-Bot2 (which Dan Cohen describes elsewhere in this issue of D-Lib) represent examples of information extraction already in use. H-Bot, in particular, builds on our evolving ability to extract information from very large corpora such as the billions of web pages available through the Google API. Aside from identifying higher order statements, however, users also want to search and browse named entities: they want to read about "C. P. E. Bach" rather than his father "Johann Sebastian" or about "Cambridge, Maryland", without hearing about "Cambridge, Massachusetts", Cambridge in the UK or any of the other Cambridges scattered around the world. Named entity identification is a well-established area with an ongoing literature. The Natural Language Processing Research Group at the University of Sheffield has developed its open source Generalized Architecture for Text Engineering (GATE) for years, while IBM's Unstructured Information Analysis and Search (UIMA) is "available as open source software to provide a common foundation for industry and academia." Powerful tools are thus freely available and more demanding users can draw upon published literature to develop their own systems. Major search engines such as Google and Yahoo also integrate increasingly sophisticated tools to categorize and identify places. The software resources are rich and expanding. The reference works on which these systems depend, however, are ill-suited for historical analysis. First, simple gazetteers and similar authority lists quickly grow too big for useful information extraction. They provide us with potential entities against which to match textual references, but existing electronic reference works assume that human readers can use their knowledge of geography and of the immediate context to pick the right Boston from the Bostons in the Getty Thesaurus of Geographic Names (TGN), but, with the crucial exception of geographic location, the TGN records do not provide any machine readable clues: we cannot tell which Bostons are large or small. If we are analyzing a document published in 1818, we cannot filter out those places that did not yet exist or that had different names: "Jefferson Davis" is not the name of a parish in Louisiana (tgn,2000880) or a county in Mississippi (tgn,2001118) until after the Civil War.
Although the Alexandria Digital Library provides far richer data than the TGN (5.9 vs. 1.3 million names), its added size lowers, rather than increases, the accuracy of most geographic name identification systems for historical documents: most of the extra 4.6 million names cover low frequency entities that rarely occur in any particular corpus. The TGN is sufficiently comprehensive to provide quite enough noise: we find place names that are used over and over (there are almost one hundred Washingtons) and semantically ambiguous (e.g., is Washington a person or a place?). Comprehensive knowledge sources emphasize recall but lower precision. We need data with which to determine which "Tribune" or "John Brown" a particular passage denotes. Secondly and paradoxically, our reference works may not be comprehensive enough. Human actors come and go over time. Organizations appear and vanish. Even places can change their names or vanish. The TGN does associate the obsolete name Siam with the nation of Thailand (tgn,1000142) - but also with towns named Siam in Iowa (tgn,2035651), Tennessee (tgn,2101519), and Ohio (tgn,2662003). Prussia appears but as a general region (tgn,7016786), with no indication when or if it was a sovereign nation. And if places do point to the same object over time, that object may have very different significance over time: in the foundational works of Western historiography, Herodotus reminds us that the great cities of the past may be small today, and the small cities of today great tomorrow (Hdt. 1.5), while Thucydides stresses that we cannot estimate the past significance of a place by its appearance today (Thuc. 1.10). In other words, we need to know the population figures for the various Washingtons in 1870 if we are analyzing documents from 1870. The foundations have been laid for reference works that provide machine actionable information about entities at particular times in history. The Alexandria Digital Library Gazetteer Content Standard8 represents a sophisticated framework with which to create such resources: places can be associated with temporal information about their foundation (e.g., Washington, DC, founded on 16 July 1790), changes in names for the same location (e.g., Saint Petersburg to Leningrad and back again), population figures at various times and similar historically contingent data. But if we have the software and the data structures, we do not yet have substantial amounts of historical content such as plentiful digital gazetteers, encyclopedias, lexica, grammars and other reference works to illustrate many periods and, even if we do, those resources may not be in a useful form: raw OCR output of a complex lexicon or gazetteer may have so many errors and have captured so little of the underlying structure that the digital resource is useless as a knowledge base. Put another way, human beings are still much better at reading and interpreting the contents of page images than machines. While people, places, and dates are probably the most important core entities, we will find a growing set of objects that we need to identify and track across collections, and each of these categories of objects will require its own knowledge sources. The following section enumerates and briefly describes some existing categories of documents that we need to mine for knowledge. This brief survey focuses on the format of print sources (e.g., highly structured textual "database" vs. unstructured text) to illustrate some of the challenges involved in converting our published knowledge into semantically annotated, machine actionable form.

0.024023497 = product of:
  0.048046995 = sum of:
    0.034465462 = weight(_text_:digital in 3077) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034465462 = score(doc=3077,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.17432621 = fieldWeight in 3077, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3077)
    0.013581533 = product of:
      0.027163066 = sum of:
        0.027163066 = weight(_text_:22 in 3077) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027163066 = score(doc=3077,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3077, 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=3077)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The new term Representation of knowledge, applied to the framework of electronic segments of information, with comprehension of new material support for information, and a review and total conceptualisation of the terminology which is being applied, entails a review of all traditional documentary practices. Therefore, a definition of the concept of Representation of knowledge is indispensable. The term representation has been used in westere cultural and intellectual tradition to refer to the diverse ways that a subject comprehends an object. Representation is a process which requires the structure of natural language and human memory whereby it is interwoven in a subject and in conscience. However, at the present time, the term Representation of knowledge is applied to the processing of electronic information, combined with the aim of emulating the human mind in such a way that one has endeavoured to transfer, with great difficulty, the complex structurality of the conceptual representation of human knowledge to new digital information technologies. Thus, nowadays, representation of knowledge has taken an diverse meanings and it has focussed, for the moment, an certain structures and conceptual hierarchies which carry and transfer information, and has initially been based an the current representation of knowledge using artificial intelligence. The traditional languages of documentation, also referred to as languages of representation, offer a structured representation of conceptual fields, symbols and terms of natural and notational language, and they are the pillars for the necessary correspondence between the object or text and its representation. These correspondences, connections and symbolisations will be established within the electronic framework by means of different models and of the "goal" domain, which will give rise to organisations, structures, maps, networks and levels, as new electronic documents are not compact units but segments of information. Thus, the new representation of knowledge refers to data, images, figures and symbolised, treated, processed and structured ideas which replace or refer to documents within the framework of technical processing and the recuperation of electronic information.

Date

2. 1.2005 18:22:25

0.022385975 = product of:
  0.0895439 = sum of:
    0.0895439 = weight(_text_:digital in 1365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0895439 = score(doc=1365,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.4529128 = fieldWeight in 1365, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1365)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Trust in information is developing into a vitally important topic as the Internet becomes increasingly ubiquitous within society. Although many discussions of trust in this environment focus on issues like security, technical reliability, or e-commerce, few address the problem of trust in the information obtained from the Internet. The authors assert that there is a strong need for theoretical and empirical research on trust within the field of information science. As an initial step, the present study develops a model of trust in digital information by integrating the research on trust from the behavioral and social sciences with the research on information quality and human- computer interaction. The model positions trust as a key mediating variable between information quality and information usage, with important consequences for both the producers and consumers of digital information. The authors close by outlining important directions for future research on trust in information science and technology.

0.02069512 = product of:
  0.04139024 = sum of:
    0.021657582 = weight(_text_:library in 5985) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021657582 = score(doc=5985,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.16433616 = fieldWeight in 5985, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5985)
    0.019732658 = product of:
      0.039465316 = sum of:
        0.039465316 = weight(_text_:project in 5985) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039465316 = score(doc=5985,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.18654276 = fieldWeight in 5985, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5985)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This research explores, using a Grounded Theory approach, the question of how a particular group of undergraduate university students differentiates the values of retrieved information in a contemporary research process. Specifically it attempts to isolate and label those specific techniques, processes, formulae-both objective and subjective-that the students use to identify, prioritize, and successfully incorporate the most useful and valuable information into their research project. The research reviews the relevant literature covering the areas of: epistemology, knowledge acquisition, and cognitive learning theory; early relevance research; the movement from relevance models to information seeking in context; and the proximate recent research. A research methodology is articulated using a Grounded Theory approach, and the research process and research participants are fully explained and described. The findings of the research are set forth using three Thematic Sets- Traditional Relevance Measures; Structural Frames; and Metaphors: General and Ecological-using the actual discourse of the study participants, and a theoretical construct is advanced. Based on that construct, it can be theorized that identification and analysis of the metaphorical language that the particular students in this study used, both by way of general and ecological metaphors-their stories-about how they found, handled, and evaluated information, can be a very useful tool in understanding how the students identified, prioritized, and successfully incorporated the most useful and relevant information into their research projects. It also is argued that this type of metaphorical analysis could be useful in providing a bridging mechanism for a broader understanding of the relationships between traditional user relevance studies and the concepts of frame theory and sense-making. Finally, a corollary to Whitmire's original epistemological hypothesis is posited: Students who were more adept at using metaphors-either general or ecological-appeared more comfortable with handling contradictory information sources, and better able to articulate their valuing decisions. The research concludes with a discussion of the implications for both future research in the Library and Information Science field, and for the practice of both Library professionals and classroom instructors involved in assisting students involved in information valuing decision-making in a research process.

0.01865498 = product of:
  0.07461992 = sum of:
    0.07461992 = weight(_text_:digital in 1601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07461992 = score(doc=1601,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.37742734 = fieldWeight in 1601, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1601)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Die Frage nach dem Besitz an Wissen wird als die Frage nach dem Zugriff (Access) auf Wissen bzw. auf Information reformuliert. Antworten darauf entscheiden über die Entwicklung der Informationsgesellschaft. Die Präferenz dieser Bezeichnung gegenüber "Wissensgesellschaft" wird aus dem pragmatischen Informationsbegriff begründet. Von den insgesamt 6 vorgestellten Sichten auf "Informationsgesellschaft" wird näher auf die derzeit dominierende funktionale Sicht auf Wissen und Information eingegangen. Diese erklärt die gegenwärtigen Tendenzen der Kommerzialisierung und Wissensverwertung, aber auch der Transformation der Verhaltensformen gegenüber Wissen (z.B. Wechsel vom Kauf von Wissen zu dessen Leasing) mit den Konsequenzen des "Pricing for Information" und entsprechenden Kontrollverfahren des "Digital Rights Management". Im Ausgang von Differenzierungen im Begriff des "Access" werden Begründungen für "Universal access" vorgestellt, vor allem aus informationsethischer und normativ-prinzipalistischer Sicht. Ausführlich werden einige gegenwärtige Gefährdungen von "Universal access" an den Beispielen Filtern bzw. Abblocken, Manipulation von Metainformationsdiensten und des Leasing bzw. des "Digital Rights Management" diskutiert. "Digital Rights Management" ohne vertrauenssicherndes "User Rights Management" hat alle Potenziale, zum Folterinstrument der Informationsgesellschaft zu werden, aber auf der anderen Seite auch alle Potenziale, durch sozial gesteuerte Rechte- und Benutzerverwaltung das Instrument für Interessenausgleich und damit Informationsfrieden zu werden. Abschließend werden einige Vorschläge unterbreitet, wie das Prinzip des "Universal access" und damit der freie öffentliche Zugang zu Wissen und Information gesichert, zumindest gefördert werden kann. Aus der Diskussion leiten sich verschiedene mögliche Szenarien und die Schlußfolgerung ab, daß jede Zeit unter Anerkennung der technologischen und medialen Rahmenbedingungen ihren Konsens zwischen öffentlichem und privatem Interesse an Verwertung bzw. Austausch von Wissen und am Zugriff auf Wissen neu bestimmen muß.

0.018278074 = product of:
  0.073112294 = sum of:
    0.073112294 = weight(_text_:digital in 4602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.073112294 = score(doc=4602,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.36980176 = fieldWeight in 4602, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4602)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

User problems with large information spaces multiply in complexity when we enter the digital domain. Virtual information environments can offer 3D representations, reconfigurations, and access to large databases that may overwhelm many users' abilities to filter and represent. As a result, user frequently experience disorienting in navigation large digital spaces to locate an duse information. To date, the research response has been predominantly based on the analysis of visual navigational aids that might support users' bottom-up processing of the spatial display. In the present paper, an emerging alternative is considered that places greater emphasis on the top-down application of semantic knowledge by the user gleaned from their experiences within the sociocognitive context of information production and consumption. A distinction between spatial and semantic cues is introduced, and existing empirical data are reviewed that highlight the differential reliance on spatial or semantic information as the domain expertise of the user increases. The conclusion is reached that interfaces for shaping information should be built on an increasing analysis of users' semantic processing

0.017260706 = product of:
  0.034521412 = sum of:
    0.015314223 = weight(_text_:library in 3012) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015314223 = score(doc=3012,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.11620321 = fieldWeight in 3012, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3012)
    0.019207189 = product of:
      0.038414378 = sum of:
        0.038414378 = weight(_text_:22 in 3012) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038414378 = score(doc=3012,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.21886435 = fieldWeight in 3012, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3012)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Complexity establishes a paradox between the tasks of preserving old knowledge (memory function) and facilitate cognitive dissonance in order to challenge established knowledge claims and create new knowledge (catalyser function). Through complexity all social systems organisations, discourse communities, ideologies) face an environment (or surrounding) that is characterised through its instability and contingency. What is real, or presumable real from one point of view can appear completely different from another point of view. Different discourses of meaning and significance float, blend and separates themselves form each other the arena of communication. The library has to both keep record of what has happened, as well as take part in the ongoing battles for new discursive hegemonies. The unity of the paradox of memory and catalysing is described as managing complexity and requires a conscious and constant oscillation between order and chaos, stability and change. The role of the librarian is defined through an analysis of contemporary social semantics as well as the technical, ethical, cultural and epistemological challenges facing us as librarians and information specialists.

Date

22. 7.2009 11:23:22

0.01658462 = product of:
  0.06633848 = sum of:
    0.06633848 = product of:
      0.19901544 = sum of:
        0.19901544 = weight(_text_:3a in 5895) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.19901544 = score(doc=5895,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.42493033 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 5895, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5895)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Politische Meinung. 381(2001) Nr.1, S.65-74 [https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dgfe.de%2Ffileadmin%2FOrdnerRedakteure%2FSektionen%2FSek02_AEW%2FKWF%2FPublikationen_Reihe_1989-2003%2FBand_17%2FBd_17_1994_355-406_A.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2KcbRsHy5UQ9QRIUyuOLNi]

0.014405392 = product of:
  0.05762157 = sum of:
    0.05762157 = product of:
      0.11524314 = sum of:
        0.11524314 = weight(_text_:22 in 3952) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11524314 = score(doc=3952,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.6565931 = fieldWeight in 3952, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3952)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

17. 7.1996 9:33:22
22. 7.2000 19:05:41

0.013581533 = product of:
  0.054326132 = sum of:
    0.054326132 = product of:
      0.108652264 = sum of:
        0.108652264 = weight(_text_:22 in 4368) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.108652264 = score(doc=4368,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 4368, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4368)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

13. 7.2008 19:22:28

0.012924549 = product of:
  0.051698197 = sum of:
    0.051698197 = weight(_text_:digital in 4243) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051698197 = score(doc=4243,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.26148933 = fieldWeight in 4243, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4243)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Inequities in information creation, production, distribution, and use are nothing new. Throughout human history some people have been more educated, better connected, more widely traveled, or more wellinformed than others. Until recently, relatively few have enjoyed the benefits of literacy, and even fewer could afford to own books. In the age of mass media, societies and social groups have varied dramatically in terms of their access to and uses of print, radio, television, film, telephone, and telegraph. What is new, however, is the growing attention being given to informational inequities in an increasingly information-driven global economy. Across disciplinary, national, and cultural boundaries, the widespread agreement is that the use of newer information and communication technologies (ICTs), particularly the Internet, has accelerated the production, circulation, and consumption of information in every form. But also a growing sense has arisen that ICTs have helped to exacerbate existing differences in information access and use, and may even have fostered new types of barriers. As Hess and Ostrom (2001, p. 45) point out, "Distributed digital technologies have the dual capacity to increase as well as restrict access to information."