Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.01502503 = product of:
  0.03005006 = sum of:
    0.03005006 = product of:
      0.06010012 = sum of:
        0.06010012 = weight(_text_:online in 1972) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06010012 = score(doc=1972,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.15842392 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = queryNorm
            0.37936267 = fieldWeight in 1972, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1972)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This analysis of how the ability to participate in society online affects political and economic opportunity and finds that technology use matters in wages and income and civic participation and voting.Just as education has promoted democracy and economic growth, the Internet has the potential to benefit society as a whole. Digital citizenship, or the ability to participate in society online, promotes social inclusion. But statistics show that significant segments of the population are still excluded from digital citizenship.The authors of this book define digital citizens as those who are online daily. By focusing on frequent use, they reconceptualize debates about the digital divide to include both the means and the skills to participate online. They offer new evidence (drawn from recent national opinion surveys and Current Population Surveys) that technology use matters for wages and income, and for civic engagement and voting."Digital Citizenship" examines three aspects of participation in society online: economic opportunity, democratic participation, and inclusion in prevailing forms of communication. The authors find that Internet use at work increases wages, with less-educated and minority workers receiving the greatest benefit, and that Internet use is significantly related to political participation, especially among the young. The authors examine in detail the gaps in technological access among minorities and the poor and predict that this digital inequality is not likely to disappear in the near future. Public policy, they argue, must address educational and technological disparities if we are to achieve full participation and citizenship in the twenty-first century.

Content

Inhalt: Defining digital citizenship -- Benefits of society online : economic opportunity / with Kimberly Johns -- Benefits of society online : civic engagement / with Jason McDonald -- Benefits of society online : political participation -- From the digital divide to digital citizenship / with Bridgett King -- Broadband and digital citizenship -- Public education and universal access : beyond the digital divide -- Appendix : multivariate regression models.

0.01250248 = product of:
  0.02500496 = sum of:
    0.02500496 = product of:
      0.05000992 = sum of:
        0.05000992 = weight(_text_:22 in 145) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05000992 = score(doc=145,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18279788 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

20.12.2006 18:22:32

Isbn

3-936931-22-4

0.0074239564 = product of:
  0.014847913 = sum of:
    0.014847913 = product of:
      0.029695826 = sum of:
        0.029695826 = weight(_text_:online in 797) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029695826 = score(doc=797,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.15842392 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = queryNorm
            0.18744534 = fieldWeight in 797, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=797)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Keen's relentless "polemic" is on target about how a sea of amateur content threatens to swamp the most vital information and how blogs often reinforce one's own views rather than expand horizons. But his jeremiad about the death of "our cultural standards and moral values" heads swiftly downhill. Keen became somewhat notorious for a 2006 Weekly Standard essay equating Web 2.0 with Marxism; like Karl Marx, he offers a convincing overall critique but runs into trouble with the details. Readers will nod in recognition at Keen's general arguments - sure, the Web is full of "user-generated nonsense"! - but many will frown at his specific examples, which pretty uniformly miss the point. It's simply not a given, as Keen assumes, that Britannica is superior to Wikipedia, or that record-store clerks offer sounder advice than online friends with similar musical tastes, or that YouTube contains only "one or two blogs or songs or videos with real value." And Keen's fears that genuine talent will go unnourished are overstated: writers penned novels before there were publishers and copyright law; bands recorded songs before they had major-label deals. In its last third, the book runs off the rails completely, blaming Web 2.0 for online poker, child pornography, identity theft and betraying "Judeo-Christian ethics."

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.

0.002656075 = product of:
  0.00531215 = sum of:
    0.00531215 = product of:
      0.0106243 = sum of:
        0.0106243 = weight(_text_:online in 1795) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0106243 = score(doc=1795,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15842392 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05220068 = queryNorm
            0.067062475 = fieldWeight in 1795, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1795)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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).