Search (189 results, page 1 of 10)

0.20048304 = product of:
  0.40096608 = sum of:
    0.40096608 = sum of:
      0.31878725 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 8959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.31878725 = score(doc=8959,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050545633 = queryNorm
          1.08745 = fieldWeight in 8959, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
            0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=8959)
      0.08217882 = weight(_text_:22 in 8959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08217882 = score(doc=8959,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17700219 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050545633 = queryNorm
          0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 8959, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=8959)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

16. 7.2002 20:22:55

RSWK

LINUX 2.0

Subject

LINUX 2.0

0.13784513 = product of:
  0.27569026 = sum of:
    0.27569026 = sum of:
      0.2277526 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 6122) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.2277526 = score(doc=6122,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050545633 = queryNorm
          0.7769118 = fieldWeight in 6122, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6122)
      0.047937647 = weight(_text_:22 in 6122) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.047937647 = score(doc=6122,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17700219 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050545633 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 6122, 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=6122)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Noch ist nicht entschieden mit welcher Vehemenz das sogenannte Web 2.0 die Bibliotheken verändern wird. Allerdings wird hier und da bereits mit Bezugnahme auf das sogenannte Semantic Web von einer dritten und mancherorts von einer vierten Generation des Web gesprochen. Der Vortrag hinterfragt kritisch, welche Konzepte sich hinter diesen Bezeichnungen verbergen und geht der Frage nach, welche Herausforderungen eine Übernahme dieser Konzepte für die Bibliothekswelt mit sich bringen würde. Vgl. insbes. Folie 22 mit einer Darstellung von der Entwicklung vom Web 1.0 zum Web 4.0

Object

Web 2.0

0.13365535 = product of:
  0.2673107 = sum of:
    0.2673107 = sum of:
      0.21252482 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 3478) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.21252482 = score(doc=3478,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050545633 = queryNorm
          0.72496665 = fieldWeight in 3478, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3478)
      0.05478588 = weight(_text_:22 in 3478) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05478588 = score(doc=3478,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17700219 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050545633 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3478, 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=3478)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Web 2.0 in just under 5 minutes.

Date

5. 1.2008 19:22:48

0.11104417 = product of:
  0.22208834 = sum of:
    0.22208834 = sum of:
      0.18784717 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.18784717 = score(doc=1291,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050545633 = queryNorm
          0.640786 = fieldWeight in 1291, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1291)
      0.034241177 = weight(_text_:22 in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034241177 = score(doc=1291,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17700219 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050545633 = 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)

Abstract

More and more users index everything on their own in the web 2.0. There are services for links, videos, pictures, books, encyclopaedic articles and scientific articles. All these services are library independent. But must that really be? Can't libraries help with their experience and tools to make user indexing better? On the experience of a project from German language Wikipedia together with the German person authority files (Personen Namen Datei - PND) located at German National Library (Deutsche Nationalbibliothek) I would like to show what is possible. How users can and will use the authority files, if we let them. We will take a look how the project worked and what we can learn for future projects. Conclusions - Authority files can have a role in the web 2.0 - there must be an open interface/ service for retrieval - everything that is indexed on the net with authority files can be easy integrated in a federated search - O'Reilly: You have to found ways that your data get more important that more it will be used

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".

Object

Web 2.0

0.10500976 = product of:
  0.21001951 = sum of:
    0.21001951 = product of:
      0.42003903 = sum of:
        0.42003903 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 4698) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.42003903 = score(doc=4698,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050545633 = queryNorm
            1.4328411 = fieldWeight in 4698, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4698)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

RSWK

LINUX 2.0
LINUX 2.0 / CD-ROM

Subject

LINUX 2.0
LINUX 2.0 / CD-ROM

0.09297961 = product of:
  0.18595922 = sum of:
    0.18595922 = product of:
      0.37191844 = sum of:
        0.37191844 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 5037) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.37191844 = score(doc=5037,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050545633 = queryNorm
            1.2686917 = fieldWeight in 5037, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5037)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Object

Web 2.0

0.08971533 = product of:
  0.17943066 = sum of:
    0.17943066 = sum of:
      0.13149302 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 1267) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.13149302 = score(doc=1267,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050545633 = queryNorm
          0.4485502 = fieldWeight in 1267, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1267)
      0.047937647 = weight(_text_:22 in 1267) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.047937647 = score(doc=1267,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17700219 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050545633 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1267, 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=1267)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This video explores the changes in the way we find, store, create, critique, and share information. This video was created as a conversation starter, and works especially well when brainstorming with people about the near future and the skills needed in order to harness, evaluate, and create information effectively. Ein sehr schöner Kurzfilm von Michael Wesch, dem wir auch den Beitrag zu Web 2.0 (The Machine is Us/ing Us) verdanken (vor einiger Zeit hier besprochen), thematisiert die Veränderung der Handhabung von Information (insbesondere die Strukturierung und Ordnung, aber auch die Generierung und Speicherung), die auf ihre digitale Gestalt zurückzuführen ist. Kernaussage: Da die Informationen keine physikalischen Beschränkungen mehr unterworfen sind, wird die Ordnung der Informationen vielfältiger, flexibler und für jedermann einfacher zugänglich.

Date

5. 1.2008 19:22:48

0.07513887 = product of:
  0.15027773 = sum of:
    0.15027773 = product of:
      0.30055547 = sum of:
        0.30055547 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 1319) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.30055547 = score(doc=1319,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050545633 = queryNorm
            1.0252576 = fieldWeight in 1319, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1319)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.06689989 = product of:
  0.13379978 = sum of:
    0.13379978 = product of:
      0.4013993 = sum of:
        0.4013993 = weight(_text_:3a in 1826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.4013993 = score(doc=1826,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.42852643 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050545633 = queryNorm
            0.93669677 = fieldWeight in 1826, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1826)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDQQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdigbib.ubka.uni-karlsruhe.de%2Fvolltexte%2Fdocuments%2F3131107&ei=HzFWVYvGMsiNsgGTyoFI&usg=AFQjCNE2FHUeR9oQTQlNC4TPedv4Mo3DaQ&sig2=Rlzpr7a3BLZZkqZCXXN_IA&bvm=bv.93564037,d.bGg&cad=rja

0.06574651 = product of:
  0.13149302 = sum of:
    0.13149302 = product of:
      0.26298603 = sum of:
        0.26298603 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 6655) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.26298603 = score(doc=6655,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050545633 = queryNorm
            0.8971004 = fieldWeight in 6655, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6655)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Issue

Version 2.0.

0.05635415 = product of:
  0.1127083 = sum of:
    0.1127083 = product of:
      0.2254166 = sum of:
        0.2254166 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 5618) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2254166 = score(doc=5618,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050545633 = queryNorm
            0.7689432 = fieldWeight in 5618, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5618)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.05635415 = product of:
  0.1127083 = sum of:
    0.1127083 = product of:
      0.2254166 = sum of:
        0.2254166 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 1304) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2254166 = score(doc=1304,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050545633 = queryNorm
            0.7689432 = fieldWeight in 1304, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1304)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This is the full text of a "Reply All" debate on Web 2.0 between authors Andrew Keen and David Weinberger

Content

"Mr. Keen begins: So what, exactly, is Web 2.0? It is the radical democratization of media which is enabling anyone to publish anything on the Internet. Mainstream media's traditional audience has become Web 2.0's empowered author. Web 2.0 transforms all of us -- from 90-year-old grandmothers to eight-year-old third graders -- into digital writers, music artists, movie makers and journalists. Web 2.0 is YouTube, the blogosphere, Wikipedia, MySpace or Facebook. Web 2.0 is YOU! (Time Magazine's Person of the Year for 2006). Is Web 2.0 a dream or a nightmare? Is it a remix of Disney's "Cinderella" or of Kafka's "Metamorphosis"? Have we -- as empowered conversationalists in the global citizen media community -- woken up with the golden slipper of our ugly sister (aka: mainstream media) on our dainty little foot? Or have we -- as authors-formerly-know-as-the-audience -- woken up as giant cockroaches doomed to eternally stare at our hideous selves in the mirror of Web 2.0? Silicon Valley, of course, interprets Web 2.0 as Disney rather than Kafka. After all, as the sales and marketing architects of this great democratization argue, what could be wrong with a radically flattened media? Isn't it dreamy that we can all now publish ourselves, that we each possess digital versions of Johannes Gutenberg's printing press, that we are now able to easily create, distribute and sell our content on the Internet? This is personal liberation with an early 21st Century twist -- a mash-up of the countercultural Sixties, the free market idealism of the Eighties, and the technological determinism and consumer-centricity of the Nineties. The people have finally spoken. The media has become their message and the people are self-broadcasting this message of emancipation on their 70 million blogs, their hundreds of millions of YouTube videos, their MySpace pages and their Wikipedia entries. ..."

0.053519912 = product of:
  0.107039824 = sum of:
    0.107039824 = product of:
      0.32111946 = sum of:
        0.32111946 = weight(_text_:3a in 230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.32111946 = score(doc=230,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.42852643 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050545633 = queryNorm
            0.7493574 = fieldWeight in 230, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=230)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

https%3A%2F%2Ftannerlectures.utah.edu%2F_documents%2Fa-to-z%2Fp%2Fpopper80.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3f4QRTEH-OEBmoYr2J_c7H

0.042003904 = product of:
  0.08400781 = sum of:
    0.08400781 = product of:
      0.16801561 = sum of:
        0.16801561 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 4426) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16801561 = score(doc=4426,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050545633 = queryNorm
            0.57313645 = fieldWeight in 4426, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4426)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Wissen Sie, wie sich zukünftig Bibliografien, Kataloge und OPACs bedienen lassen? Wenn wir über die Zukunft von Bibliografien, Katalogen und OPACs nachdenken, denken wir dann zunächst an Medien verzeichnisse oder an offene, kommunikative Webportale, die es jedem ermöglichen, sich nach Art des Web 2.0 an der Erfassung der bibliografischen Daten zu beteiligen? Wenn wir mediale Internet angebote des Web 2.0 genauer betrachtet, bieten diese meh als lediglich die Verzeichnung von Medien. Es zeigt sich, dass angesichts aktueller Entwicklungen in Richtung Web 2.0 die Frage neu gestellt werden sollte, in welcher Form zukünftig mediografische Portale ihren Nutzen haben könnten. Beispielsweise könnte ein OPAC 2.0 jedem Interessenten einen individuellen Zugang zu einem Informationsraum offerieren, der sich funktionell ganz den eigenen Bedürfnissen und Wünschen des Bibliotheksnutzers anpasst und nicht nur Zugang zu Informationen ermöglicht, sondern auch vollmedialen Zugriff, inhaltliche Verweisfunktionen, erweiterten Service sowie Kommunikationsfunktionen. Die Antwort lautet also, dass Archive und Bibliotheken mehr über mediografische Portale nachden ken sollten und nicht über Bibliografien, Kataloge und OPACs! Eine darauf folgend wichtige Frage ist, ob diese Portale sowohl inhaltlich als auch funktionell nicht nur unseren Archiv und Bibliotheksnutzern mehr Service bieten, sondern auch einen höheren Zweck für Archive und Bibliotheken selbst darstellen? Die Online Techniken des Web 2.0 und dessen Portale offerieren virtuelle Welten und neue Möglichkeiten zum Aktiv und Produktivsein, also insgesamt zum Proaktivsein unserer Nutzer. Die Betrachtung solcher Internetangebote zeigt, dass sich mediografische Angebote bereits in einer Entwicklung befinden. Doch wenn es eine solche Entwicklung gibt, muss überlegt werden, wie Archive und Bibliotheken sich hierbei einbringen können. Somit zeichnet sich bei diesem Thema eine Brisanz ab. Denn zu bedenken ist, dass mediografische Daten bereits in Rechercheergebnissen bei Online-Datenbanken, Internet Suchmaschinen, Online Enzyklopädien oder anderen Angeboten eine Rolle spielen.

0.039848406 = product of:
  0.07969681 = sum of:
    0.07969681 = product of:
      0.15939362 = sum of:
        0.15939362 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 702) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15939362 = score(doc=702,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050545633 = queryNorm
            0.543725 = fieldWeight in 702, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=702)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In 2006 the University of Manitoba's (UM) Libraries and Learning Technologies Centre collaborated to create an online tutorial to support the development of international students' information literacy skills. The International Student project addressed the unique needs of foreign students by using a broad spectrum definition of information literacy, which includes supporting development of social and cultural skills as well as information-seeking ones. In addition to informational content, the developers incorporated Web 2.0 functionality to enable students to interact outside of the classroom. The final product was placed in the university's new Virtual Learning Commons, a webspace designed to be a central location for online learning and discussion.

Object

Web 2.0

0.037569433 = product of:
  0.07513887 = sum of:
    0.07513887 = product of:
      0.15027773 = sum of:
        0.15027773 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 4984) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15027773 = score(doc=4984,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050545633 = queryNorm
            0.5126288 = fieldWeight in 4984, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4984)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Issue

Ausg. 2.0.

0.037569433 = product of:
  0.07513887 = sum of:
    0.07513887 = product of:
      0.15027773 = sum of:
        0.15027773 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 2139) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15027773 = score(doc=2139,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050545633 = queryNorm
            0.5126288 = fieldWeight in 2139, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2139)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Google or Wikipedia? Those of us who search online -- and who doesn't? -- are getting referred more and more to Wikipedia. For the past two years, this free online "encyclopedia of the people" has been topping the lists of the world's most popular websites. But do we really know what we're using? Backlight plunges into the story behind Wikipedia and explores the wonderful world of Web 2.0. Is it a revolution, or pure hype? Director IJsbrand van Veelen goes looking for the truth behind Wikipedia. Only five people are employed by the company, and all its activities are financed by donations and subsidies. The online encyclopedia that everyone can contribute to and revise is now even bigger than the illustrious Encyclopedia Britannica. Does this spell the end for traditional institutions of knowledge such as Britannica? And should we applaud this development as progress or mourn it as a loss? How reliable is Wikipedia? Do "the people" really hold the lease on wisdom? And since when do we believe that information should be free for all? In this film, "Wikipedians," the folks who spend their days writing and editing articles, explain how the online encyclopedia works. In addition, the parties involved discuss Wikipedia's ethics and quality of content. It quickly becomes clear that there are camps of both believers and critics. Wiki's Truth introduces us to the main players in the debate: Jimmy Wales (founder and head Wikipedian), Larry Sanger (co-founder of Wikipedia, now head of Wiki spin-off Citizendium), Andrew Keen (author of The Cult of the Amateur: How Today's Internet Is Killing Our Culture and Assaulting Our Economy), Phoebe Ayers (a Wikipedian in California), Ndesanjo Macha (Swahili Wikipedia, digital activist), Tim O'Reilly (CEO of O'Reilly Media, the "inventor" of Web 2.0), Charles Leadbeater (philosopher and author of We Think, about crowdsourcing), and Robert McHenry (former editor-in-chief of Encyclopedia Britannica). Opening is a video by Chris Pirillo. The questions surrounding Wikipedia lead to a bigger discussion of Web 2.0, a phenomenon in which the user determines the content. Examples include YouTube, MySpace, Facebook, and Wikipedia. These sites would appear to provide new freedom and opportunities for undiscovered talent and unheard voices, but just where does the boundary lie between expert and amateur? Who will survive according to the laws of this new "digital Darwinism"? Are equality and truth really reconcilable ideals? And most importantly, has the Internet brought us wisdom and truth, or is it high time for a cultural counterrevolution?

Object

Web 2.0

0.033449944 = product of:
  0.06689989 = sum of:
    0.06689989 = product of:
      0.20069966 = sum of:
        0.20069966 = weight(_text_:3a in 4388) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.20069966 = score(doc=4388,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.42852643 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050545633 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 4388, 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=4388)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Vgl. unter: https://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwizweHljdbcAhVS16QKHXcFD9QQFjABegQICRAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fpublication%2F271200105_Die_Autonomie_des_Menschen_und_der_Maschine_-_gegenwartige_Definitionen_von_Autonomie_zwischen_philosophischem_Hintergrund_und_technologischer_Umsetzbarkeit_Redigierte_Version_der_Magisterarbeit_Karls&usg=AOvVaw06orrdJmFF2xbCCp_hL26q.

0.033449944 = product of:
  0.06689989 = sum of:
    0.06689989 = product of:
      0.20069966 = sum of:
        0.20069966 = weight(_text_:3a in 5669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.20069966 = score(doc=5669,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.42852643 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050545633 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 5669, 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=5669)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

"Die Englischsprachige Wikipedia verfügt jetzt über mehr als 6 Millionen Artikel. An zweiter Stelle kommt die deutschsprachige Wikipedia mit 2.3 Millionen Artikeln, an dritter Stelle steht die französischsprachige Wikipedia mit 2.1 Millionen Artikeln (via Researchbuzz: Firehose <https://rbfirehose.com/2020/01/24/techcrunch-wikipedia-now-has-more-than-6-million-articles-in-english/> und Techcrunch <https://techcrunch.com/2020/01/23/wikipedia-english-six-million-articles/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Techcrunch+%28TechCrunch%29&guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9yYmZpcmVob3NlLmNvbS8yMDIwLzAxLzI0L3RlY2hjcnVuY2gtd2lraXBlZGlhLW5vdy1oYXMtbW9yZS10aGFuLTYtbWlsbGlvbi1hcnRpY2xlcy1pbi1lbmdsaXNoLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAK0zHfjdDZ_spFZBF_z-zDjtL5iWvuKDumFTzm4HvQzkUfE2pLXQzGS6FGB_y-VISdMEsUSvkNsg2U_NWQ4lwWSvOo3jvXo1I3GtgHpP8exukVxYAnn5mJspqX50VHIWFADHhs5AerkRn3hMRtf_R3F1qmEbo8EROZXp328HMC-o>). 250120 via digithek ch = #fineBlog s.a.: Angesichts der Veröffentlichung des 6-millionsten Artikels vergangene Woche in der englischsprachigen Wikipedia hat die Community-Zeitungsseite "Wikipedia Signpost" ein Moratorium bei der Veröffentlichung von Unternehmensartikeln gefordert. Das sei kein Vorwurf gegen die Wikimedia Foundation, aber die derzeitigen Maßnahmen, um die Enzyklopädie gegen missbräuchliches undeklariertes Paid Editing zu schützen, funktionierten ganz klar nicht. *"Da die ehrenamtlichen Autoren derzeit von Werbung in Gestalt von Wikipedia-Artikeln überwältigt werden, und da die WMF nicht in der Lage zu sein scheint, dem irgendetwas entgegenzusetzen, wäre der einzige gangbare Weg für die Autoren, fürs erste die Neuanlage von Artikeln über Unternehmen zu untersagen"*, schreibt der Benutzer Smallbones in seinem Editorial <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2020-01-27/From_the_editor> zur heutigen Ausgabe."

0.033207003 = product of:
  0.066414006 = sum of:
    0.066414006 = product of:
      0.13282801 = sum of:
        0.13282801 = weight(_text_:2.0 in 2813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13282801 = score(doc=2813,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.29315117 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050545633 = queryNorm
            0.45310414 = fieldWeight in 2813, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.799733 = idf(docFreq=363, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2813)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Today, in times of Web 2.0., graduates and undergraduates interact in virtual communities like studiVZ (Studentenverzeichnis) and generate content by reviewing or tagging documents. This phenomenon offers good prospects for academic libraries. They can use the customers' tags for indexing the growing amount of electronic resources and thereby optimize the search for these documents. Important examples are the journals, databases and e-books included in the "Nationallizenzen" financed by the German Research Foundation (DFG). The documents in this collection are not manually indexed by librarians and have no annotation according to the German standard classification systems. Connecting search systems by means of Web-2.0.-services is an important task for libraries. For this purpose users are encouraged to tag printed and electronic resources in search systems like the libraries' online catalogs and to establish connections between entries in other systems, e.g. Bibsonomy, and the items found in the online catalog. As a consequence annotations chosen by both, users and librarians, will coexist: The items in the tagging systems and the online catalog are linked, library users may find other publications of interest, and contacts between library users with similar scientific interests may be established. Librarians have to face the fact that user generated tags do not necessarily have the same quality as their own annotations and will therefore have to seek for instruments for comparing user generated tags with library generated keywords.