Search (19 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"Social tagging"
  1. Bentley, C.M.; Labelle, P.R.: ¬A comparison of social tagging designs and user participation (2008) 0.03 
    0.034156326 = product of:
  0.06831265 = sum of:
    0.06831265 = sum of:
      0.04034399 = weight(_text_:2004 in 2657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04034399 = score(doc=2657,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.21705271 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.2057996 = idf(docFreq=1791, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051607955 = queryNorm
          0.18587184 = fieldWeight in 2657, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.2057996 = idf(docFreq=1791, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2657)
      0.027968662 = weight(_text_:22 in 2657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027968662 = score(doc=2657,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18072227 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051607955 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2657, 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=2657)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Social tagging empowers users to categorize content in a personally meaningful way while harnessing their potential to contribute to a collaborative construction of knowledge (Vander Wal, 2007). In addition, social tagging systems offer innovative filtering mechanisms that facilitate resource discovery and browsing (Mathes, 2004). As a result, social tags may support online communication, informal or intended learning as well as the development of online communities. The purpose of this mixed methods study is to examine how undergraduate students participate in social tagging activities in order to learn about their motivations, behaviours and practices. A better understanding of their knowledge, habits and interactions with such systems will help practitioners and developers identify important factors when designing enhancements. In the first phase of the study, students enrolled at a Canadian university completed 103 questionnaires. Quantitative results focusing on general familiarity with social tagging, frequently used Web 2.0 sites, and the purpose for engaging in social tagging activities were compiled. Eight questionnaire respondents participated in follow-up semi-structured interviews that further explored tagging practices by situating questionnaire responses within concrete experiences using popular websites such as YouTube, Facebook, Del.icio.us, and Flickr. Preliminary results of this study echo findings found in the growing literature concerning social tagging from the fields of computer science (Sen et al., 2006) and information science (Golder & Huberman, 2006; Macgregor & McCulloch, 2006). Generally, two classes of social taggers emerge: those who focus on tagging for individual purposes, and those who view tagging as a way to share or communicate meaning to others. Heavy del.icio.us users, for example, were often focused on simply organizing their own content, and seemed to be conscientiously maintaining their own personally relevant categorizations while, in many cases, placing little importance on the tags of others. Conversely, users tagging items primarily to share content preferred to use specific terms to optimize retrieval and discovery by others. Our findings should inform practitioners of how interaction design can be tailored for different tagging systems applications, and how these findings are positioned within the current debate surrounding social tagging among the resource discovery community. We also hope to direct future research in the field to place a greater importance on exploring the benefits of tagging as a socially-driven endeavour rather than uniquely as a means of managing information.
    Source
    Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas
  2. Hammond, T.; Hannay, T.; Lund, B.; Flack, M.: Social bookmarking tools (II) : a case study - Connotea (2005) 0.02 
    0.017829692 = product of:
  0.035659384 = sum of:
    0.035659384 = product of:
      0.07131877 = sum of:
        0.07131877 = weight(_text_:2004 in 1189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07131877 = score(doc=1189,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21705271 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.2057996 = idf(docFreq=1791, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051607955 = queryNorm
            0.32857808 = fieldWeight in 1189, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.2057996 = idf(docFreq=1791, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1189)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Connotea is a free online reference management and social bookmarking service for scientists created by Nature Publishing Group. While somewhat experimental in nature, Connotea already has a large and growing number of users, and is a real, fully functioning service. The label 'experimental' is not meant to imply that the service is any way ephemeral or esoteric, rather that the concept of social bookmarking itself and the application of that concept to reference management are both recent developments. Connotea is under active development, and we are still in the process of discovering how people will use it. In addition to Connotea being a free and public service, the core code is freely available under an open source license. Connotea was conceived from the outset as an online, social tool. Seeing the possibilities that del.icio.us was opening up for its users in the area of general web linking, we realised that scholarly reference management was a similar problem space. Connotea was designed and developed late in 2004, and soft-launched at the end of December 2004. Usage has grown over the past several months, to the point where there is now enough data in the system for interesting second-order effects to emerge. This paper will start by giving an overview of Connotea, and will outline the key concepts and describe its main features. We will then take the reader on a brief guided tour, show some of the aforementioned second-order effects, and end with a discussion of Connotea's likely future direction.
  3. Müller-Prove, M.: Modell und Anwendungsperspektive des Social Tagging (2008) 0.01 
    0.013984331 = product of:
  0.027968662 = sum of:
    0.027968662 = product of:
      0.055937324 = sum of:
        0.055937324 = weight(_text_:22 in 2882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055937324 = score(doc=2882,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18072227 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051607955 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2882, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2882)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Pages
    S.15-22
  4. Catarino, M.E.; Baptista, A.A.: Relating folksonomies with Dublin Core (2008) 0.01 
    0.012360519 = product of:
  0.024721038 = sum of:
    0.024721038 = product of:
      0.049442075 = sum of:
        0.049442075 = weight(_text_:22 in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049442075 = score(doc=2652,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18072227 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051607955 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2652, 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=2652)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Pages
    S.14-22
    Source
    Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas
  5. Harrer, A.; Lohmann, S.: Potenziale von Tagging als partizipative Methode für Lehrportale und E-Learning-Kurse (2008) 0.01 
    0.01223629 = product of:
  0.02447258 = sum of:
    0.02447258 = product of:
      0.04894516 = sum of:
        0.04894516 = weight(_text_:22 in 2889) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04894516 = score(doc=2889,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18072227 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051607955 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2889, 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=2889)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    21. 6.2009 12:22:44
  6. Kruk, S.R.; Kruk, E.; Stankiewicz, K.: Evaluation of semantic and social technologies for digital libraries (2009) 0.01 
    0.0104882475 = product of:
  0.020976495 = sum of:
    0.020976495 = product of:
      0.04195299 = sum of:
        0.04195299 = weight(_text_:22 in 3387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04195299 = score(doc=3387,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18072227 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051607955 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3387, 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=3387)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    1. 8.2010 12:35:22
  7. Rolla, P.J.: User tags versus Subject headings : can user-supplied data improve subject access to library collections? (2009) 0.01 
    0.0104882475 = product of:
  0.020976495 = sum of:
    0.020976495 = product of:
      0.04195299 = sum of:
        0.04195299 = weight(_text_:22 in 3601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04195299 = score(doc=3601,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18072227 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051607955 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3601, 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=3601)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  8. Strader, C.R.: Author-assigned keywords versus Library of Congress Subject Headings : implications for the cataloging of electronic theses and dissertations (2009) 0.01 
    0.0104882475 = product of:
  0.020976495 = sum of:
    0.020976495 = product of:
      0.04195299 = sum of:
        0.04195299 = weight(_text_:22 in 3602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04195299 = score(doc=3602,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18072227 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051607955 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3602, 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=3602)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  9. Niemann, C.: Tag-Science : Ein Analysemodell zur Nutzbarkeit von Tagging-Daten (2011) 0.01 
    0.0104882475 = product of:
  0.020976495 = sum of:
    0.020976495 = product of:
      0.04195299 = sum of:
        0.04195299 = weight(_text_:22 in 164) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04195299 = score(doc=164,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18072227 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051607955 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 164, 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=164)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    ¬Die Kraft der digitalen Unordnung: 32. Arbeits- und Fortbildungstagung der ASpB e. V., Sektion 5 im Deutschen Bibliotheksverband, 22.-25. September 2009 in der Universität Karlsruhe. Hrsg: Jadwiga Warmbrunn u.a
  10. Trant, J.; Bearman, D.: Social terminology enhancement through vernacular engagement : exploring collaborative annotation to encourage interaction with museum collections (2005) 0.01 
    0.010085997 = product of:
  0.020171994 = sum of:
    0.020171994 = product of:
      0.04034399 = sum of:
        0.04034399 = weight(_text_:2004 in 1185) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04034399 = score(doc=1185,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21705271 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.2057996 = idf(docFreq=1791, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051607955 = queryNorm
            0.18587184 = fieldWeight in 1185, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.2057996 = idf(docFreq=1791, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1185)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    From their earliest encounters with the Web, museums have seen an opportunity to move beyond uni-directional communication into an environment that engages their users and reflects a multiplicity of perspectives. Shedding the "Unassailable Voice" (Walsh 1997) in favor of many "Points of View" (Sledge 1995) has challenged traditional museum approaches to the creation and delivery of content. Novel approaches are required in order to develop and sustain user engagement (Durbin 2004). New models of exhibit creation that democratize the curatorial functions of object selection and interpretation offer one way of opening up the museum (Coldicutt and Streten 2005). Another is to use the museum as a forum and focus for community story-telling (Howard, Pratty et al. 2005). Unfortunately, museum collections remain relatively inaccessible even when 'made available' through searchable on-line databases. Museum documentation seldom satisfies the on-line access needs of the broad public, both because it is written using professional terminology and because it may not address what is important to - or remembered by - the museum visitor. For example, an exhibition now on-line at The Metropolitan Museum of Art acknowledges "Coco" Chanel only in the brief, textual introduction (The Metropolitan Museum of Art 2005a). All of the images of her delightful fashion designs are attributed to "Gabrielle Chanel" (The Metropolitan Museum of Art 2005a). Interfaces that organize collections along axes of time or place - such of that of the Timeline of Art History (The Metropolitan Museum of Art 2005e) - often fail to match users' world-views, despite the care that went into their structuring or their significant pedagogical utility. Critically, as professionals working with art museums we realize that when cataloguers and curators describe works of art, they usually do not include the "subject" of the image itself. Simply put, we rarely answer the question "What is it a picture of?" Unfortunately, visitors will often remember a work based on its visual characteristics, only to find that Web-based searches for any of the things they recall do not produce results.
  11. Danowski, P.: Authority files and Web 2.0 : Wikipedia and the PND. An Example (2007) 0.01 
    0.008740207 = product of:
  0.017480414 = sum of:
    0.017480414 = product of:
      0.03496083 = sum of:
        0.03496083 = weight(_text_:22 in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03496083 = score(doc=1291,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18072227 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051607955 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1291, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1291)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Content
    Vortrag anlässlich des Workshops: "Extending the multilingual capacity of The European Library in the EDL project Stockholm, Swedish National Library, 22-23 November 2007".
  12. Chen, M.; Liu, X.; Qin, J.: Semantic relation extraction from socially-generated tags : a methodology for metadata generation (2008) 0.01 
    0.008740207 = product of:
  0.017480414 = sum of:
    0.017480414 = product of:
      0.03496083 = sum of:
        0.03496083 = weight(_text_:22 in 2648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03496083 = score(doc=2648,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18072227 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051607955 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2648, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2648)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas
  13. Kim, H.L.; Scerri, S.; Breslin, J.G.; Decker, S.; Kim, H.G.: ¬The state of the art in tag ontologies : a semantic model for tagging and folksonomies (2008) 0.01 
    0.008740207 = product of:
  0.017480414 = sum of:
    0.017480414 = product of:
      0.03496083 = sum of:
        0.03496083 = weight(_text_:22 in 2650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03496083 = score(doc=2650,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18072227 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051607955 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2650, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2650)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas
  14. Yi, K.: Harnessing collective intelligence in social tagging using Delicious (2012) 0.01 
    0.008740207 = product of:
  0.017480414 = sum of:
    0.017480414 = product of:
      0.03496083 = sum of:
        0.03496083 = weight(_text_:22 in 515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03496083 = score(doc=515,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18072227 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051607955 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 515, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=515)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    25.12.2012 15:22:37
  15. Choi, Y.; Syn, S.Y.: Characteristics of tagging behavior in digitized humanities online collections (2016) 0.01 
    0.008740207 = product of:
  0.017480414 = sum of:
    0.017480414 = product of:
      0.03496083 = sum of:
        0.03496083 = weight(_text_:22 in 2891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03496083 = score(doc=2891,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18072227 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051607955 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2891, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2891)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    21. 4.2016 11:23:22
  16. Qin, C.; Liu, Y.; Mou, J.; Chen, J.: User adoption of a hybrid social tagging approach in an online knowledge community (2019) 0.01 
    0.008740207 = product of:
  0.017480414 = sum of:
    0.017480414 = product of:
      0.03496083 = sum of:
        0.03496083 = weight(_text_:22 in 5492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03496083 = score(doc=5492,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18072227 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051607955 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5492, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5492)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  17. DeZelar-Tiedman, V.: Doing the LibraryThing(TM) in an academic library catalog (2008) 0.01 
    0.0069921655 = product of:
  0.013984331 = sum of:
    0.013984331 = product of:
      0.027968662 = sum of:
        0.027968662 = weight(_text_:22 in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027968662 = score(doc=2666,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18072227 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051607955 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2666, 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=2666)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas
  18. Vander Wal, T.: Welcome to the Matrix! (2008) 0.01 
    0.0069921655 = product of:
  0.013984331 = sum of:
    0.013984331 = product of:
      0.027968662 = sum of:
        0.027968662 = weight(_text_:22 in 2881) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027968662 = score(doc=2881,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18072227 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051607955 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2881, 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=2881)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 6.2009 9:15:45
  19. Good tags - bad tags : Social Tagging in der Wissensorganisation (2008) 0.01 
    0.006303748 = product of:
  0.012607496 = sum of:
    0.012607496 = product of:
      0.025214992 = sum of:
        0.025214992 = weight(_text_:2004 in 3054) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025214992 = score(doc=3054,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21705271 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.2057996 = idf(docFreq=1791, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051607955 = queryNorm
            0.1161699 = fieldWeight in 3054, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.2057996 = idf(docFreq=1791, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3054)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Teile und sammle könnte der moderne Leitspruch für das Phänomen Social Tagging heißen. Die freie und kollaborative Verschlagwortung digitaler Ressourcen im Internet gehört zu den Anwendungen aus dem Kontext von Web 2.0, die sich zunehmender Beliebtheit erfreuen. Der 2003 gegründete Social Bookmarking Dienst Del.icio.us und die 2004 entstandene Bildersammlung Flickr waren erste Anwendungen, die Social Tagging anboten und noch immer einen Großteil der Nutzer/innen an sich binden. Beim Blick in die Literatur wird schnell deutlich, dass Social Tagging polarisiert: Von Befürwortern wird es als eine Form der innovativen Wissensorganisation gefeiert, während Skeptiker die Dienste des Web 2.0 inklusive Social Tagging als globale kulturelle Bedrohung verdammen. Launischer Hype oder Quantensprung was ist dran am Social Tagging? Mit der Zielsetzung, mehr über die Erwartungen, Anwendungsbereiche und Nutzungsweisen zu erfahren, wurde im Frühjahr 2008 am Institut für Wissensmedien (IWM) in Tübingen ein Workshop der Gesellschaft für Medien in der Wissenschaft (GMW) durchgeführt. Die vorliegende Publikation fasst die Ergebnisse der interdisziplinären Veranstaltung zusammen.

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 15
  • d 4

Types

Themes

Classifications