Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.012367124 = product of:
  0.024734247 = sum of:
    0.024734247 = product of:
      0.049468495 = sum of:
        0.049468495 = weight(_text_:22 in 145) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049468495 = score(doc=145,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18081884 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051635534 = 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

0.012328308 = product of:
  0.024656616 = sum of:
    0.024656616 = product of:
      0.049313232 = sum of:
        0.049313232 = weight(_text_:56 in 4979) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049313232 = score(doc=4979,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21469334 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051635534 = queryNorm
            0.22969149 = fieldWeight in 4979, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4979)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

13. 2.2012 18:30:56

0.009862646 = product of:
  0.019725293 = sum of:
    0.019725293 = product of:
      0.039450586 = sum of:
        0.039450586 = weight(_text_:56 in 4951) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039450586 = score(doc=4951,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21469334 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051635534 = queryNorm
            0.18375319 = fieldWeight in 4951, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4951)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

13. 2.2012 18:30:56

0.007396985 = product of:
  0.01479397 = sum of:
    0.01479397 = product of:
      0.02958794 = sum of:
        0.02958794 = weight(_text_:56 in 18) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02958794 = score(doc=18,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21469334 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051635534 = queryNorm
            0.1378149 = fieldWeight in 18, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=18)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Rez. in: Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis 56(2005) H.2, S.121 (K. Weber): "Rainer Kuhlen ist Professor für Informationswissenschaft an der Universität Konstanz und Lehrbeauftragter am Institut für Bibliothekswissenschaft der HumboldtUniversität zu Berlin. Seine "Informationsethik" ist als Lehrbuch konzipiert; dies ist schon allein daran ersichtlich, dass jedes Kapitel mit "Kontrollfragen" schließt, die Studierenden ermöglichen sollen, zu prüfen, ob der bisher thematisierte Stoff erfasst wurde. Der Text selbst ist in verschiedenen Schriftgrößen gesetzt. Es finden sich kleiner gesetzte Passagen, die der Autor als besonders wichtig und als Kondensat der bis dahin gebotenen Ausführungen anzusehen scheint. Dies mag für ein Selbststudium hilfreich sein, sofern man beim Autor studiert. Ob dies aber für alle Studierenden der Informationswissenschaft oder angrenzender Fächer gilt, kann man bezweifeln. Das Feld der Informationsethik ist stark in Bewegung, das Feld ist recht heterogen. Es ist zwar legitim und wünschenswert, den Versuch der Kanonisierung in der Lehre zu unternehmen, doch scheint dies noch verfrüht. Kuhlen selbst verweist mehrfach darauf, dass die Debatte der Informationsethik im Fluss ist; daher kann der Ausweis vermeintlich wichtiger und weniger wichtiger Aussagen gerade dann fehlleiten, wenn gleichzeitig der Anspruch der Allgemeingültigkeit und Vollständigkeit erhoben wird - und dieser Anspruch steckt überall in Kuhlens Buch. Die Stärke des Buchs liegt darin, dass es eine Fülle von Informationen zur Informationsethik und der darin behandelten Fragen bietet - es werden die großen Probleme angesprochen. Hier an Details zu mäkeln würde dem Anspruch des Buchs nicht gerecht werden; nimmt man die Konzeption als Lehrbuch ernst, so muss das Hauptziel sein, den Studierenden einen breiten Einblick in die jeweiligen Problemlagen zu verschaffen. Dies leistet das Buch ohne Zweifel.

0.004931323 = product of:
  0.009862646 = sum of:
    0.009862646 = product of:
      0.019725293 = sum of:
        0.019725293 = weight(_text_:56 in 1795) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019725293 = score(doc=1795,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21469334 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051635534 = queryNorm
            0.091876596 = fieldWeight in 1795, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, 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).