1,721,063 research outputs found
Seismologists and the web: is wikipedia an ally or an enemy?
No full textWhen dealing with the search of a topic over Internet, Wikipedia is often at the top of the list of sites which
can provide the required
information. As known, Wikipedia is a free, web-based, collaborative, multilingual encyclopedia supported by
a non profit project.
Its 15 million articles (over 3.3 million in English) have been written collaboratively by volunteers around the
world, and almost all of its articles can be edited by anyone with access to the site. Wikipedia was launched
in 2001 and is currently the largest and most popular general reference work on the Internet.
Wikipedia began as a complementary project for Nupedia, a free online English language encyclopedia
project whose articles were written by experts and reviewed under a formal process. Unfortunately, the times
for editing and correcting the articles were too long and Nupedia only published 24 articles before being
abandoned.
There are several advantages and disadvantages in a project like Wikipedia. Among the first, one should
mention the rapidity in publication, the chance to enlarge a primitive article in further steps, the availability to
many more people than printed documents, the free character.
On the other hand, the many disadvantages are also evident. One over all: the philosophy of publishing an
article without review and in successive steps may be the source of misunderstanding and mistakes. The
errors contained in an article are in fact removed time after time, however the original form is available to the
public for several days, which often coincide with the period of major accesses in the search for information.
Moreover, the compilation and review made by non-experts may be not completely correct and exhaustive,
but the user (which is not familiar with the topic) has no clue to distinguish a good from a fair article.
In this presentation a few examples will be given to show failures and merits of Wikipedia together with some
suggestions on how to correctly approach the information contained within. The results are then used for a
critical analysis on the relationships between seismologists and the web.PublishedMontpellier, France5.9. Formazione e informazioneope
Seismologists and the web: is wikipedia an ally or an enemy?
No full textWhen dealing with the search of a topic over Internet, Wikipedia is often at the top of the list of sites which
can provide the required
information. As known, Wikipedia is a free, web-based, collaborative, multilingual encyclopedia supported by
a non profit project.
Its 15 million articles (over 3.3 million in English) have been written collaboratively by volunteers around the
world, and almost all of its articles can be edited by anyone with access to the site. Wikipedia was launched
in 2001 and is currently the largest and most popular general reference work on the Internet.
Wikipedia began as a complementary project for Nupedia, a free online English language encyclopedia
project whose articles were written by experts and reviewed under a formal process. Unfortunately, the times
for editing and correcting the articles were too long and Nupedia only published 24 articles before being
abandoned.
There are several advantages and disadvantages in a project like Wikipedia. Among the first, one should
mention the rapidity in publication, the chance to enlarge a primitive article in further steps, the availability to
many more people than printed documents, the free character.
On the other hand, the many disadvantages are also evident. One over all: the philosophy of publishing an
article without review and in successive steps may be the source of misunderstanding and mistakes. The
errors contained in an article are in fact removed time after time, however the original form is available to the
public for several days, which often coincide with the period of major accesses in the search for information.
Moreover, the compilation and review made by non-experts may be not completely correct and exhaustive,
but the user (which is not familiar with the topic) has no clue to distinguish a good from a fair article.
In this presentation a few examples will be given to show failures and merits of Wikipedia together with some
suggestions on how to correctly approach the information contained within. The results are then used for a
critical analysis on the relationships between seismologists and the web.PublishedMontpellier, France5.9. Formazione e informazioneope
Research and press: an (im)possible relationship?
No full textThe relationship between research results and press communications is very tangled, does not
matter which study field one considers. In fact similar complications affect medicine, earth
sciences, biology, natural sciences. This abstract concerns the earth sciences due to the
frequent natural disasters that strike our planet and thus to the interest of the press towards
these phenomena than other scientific aspects, for example, of biology or zoology. However
similar consideration could probably apply to many other scientitic topics and environments.
Although results proposed by both scientists and journalists aim to inform people, they have
completely different rhythms, language and operative means. The coexistence of the two
sources and flows of information is certainly difficult already in everyday life but becomes
almost critical right after the occurrence of a natural catastrophe.
In summary, the main differences in the way the same information is treated by the two
parties are:
- the scientific result is always accompanied by the uncertainties with which it has been
obtained. When interpreted by a journalist, the part of the information concerning the likely
associated errors is neglected for several reasons. It is difficult to understand and especially to
explain to the reader; does not match the requirement for modern news to be short and fast;
apparently does not change the principal information.
- the scientific result is always susceptible of adjustments and changes. It is often very hard to
know when a result is definitive in science since other data or other evidences may slightly or
significantly change the conclusions. This aspect does not match the requirements for press
news, that cannot be published as “preliminary”
- as a consequence, the scientific result needs time. The reasons are already summarized
above: new data may be incoming, new comments or studies from colleagues working in
similar fields may be available, the availability of more modern or powerful instruments may
change the point of view. Again, this is incompatible with the press necessities: the
information must be available as soon as possible, does not matter if it is preliminary or not
precise. The concept of "good" in press often coincides with "prompt".
- the scientific results need technical language, which is indeed to be avoided in a newspaper
article or a tv talk. Therefore the problem of how to render scientific concepts understandable
becomes crucial.
As a conclusion, a compromise between the two groups of necessities is required. It is clear
that important steps have been done from both sides in the last years: researcher are now
trying to disseminate their results to a broader audience while journalists try to adopt a more
technical language educating readers or spectators to enlarge their dictionary. But
unfortunately it is not enough, as some examples of the presentation will show.PublishedRimini, Italy5.9. Formazione e informazioneope
Research and press: an (im)possible relationship?
No full textThe relationship between research results and press communications is very tangled, does not
matter which study field one considers. In fact similar complications affect medicine, earth
sciences, biology, natural sciences. This abstract concerns the earth sciences due to the
frequent natural disasters that strike our planet and thus to the interest of the press towards
these phenomena than other scientific aspects, for example, of biology or zoology. However
similar consideration could probably apply to many other scientitic topics and environments.
Although results proposed by both scientists and journalists aim to inform people, they have
completely different rhythms, language and operative means. The coexistence of the two
sources and flows of information is certainly difficult already in everyday life but becomes
almost critical right after the occurrence of a natural catastrophe.
In summary, the main differences in the way the same information is treated by the two
parties are:
- the scientific result is always accompanied by the uncertainties with which it has been
obtained. When interpreted by a journalist, the part of the information concerning the likely
associated errors is neglected for several reasons. It is difficult to understand and especially to
explain to the reader; does not match the requirement for modern news to be short and fast;
apparently does not change the principal information.
- the scientific result is always susceptible of adjustments and changes. It is often very hard to
know when a result is definitive in science since other data or other evidences may slightly or
significantly change the conclusions. This aspect does not match the requirements for press
news, that cannot be published as “preliminary”
- as a consequence, the scientific result needs time. The reasons are already summarized
above: new data may be incoming, new comments or studies from colleagues working in
similar fields may be available, the availability of more modern or powerful instruments may
change the point of view. Again, this is incompatible with the press necessities: the
information must be available as soon as possible, does not matter if it is preliminary or not
precise. The concept of "good" in press often coincides with "prompt".
- the scientific results need technical language, which is indeed to be avoided in a newspaper
article or a tv talk. Therefore the problem of how to render scientific concepts understandable
becomes crucial.
As a conclusion, a compromise between the two groups of necessities is required. It is clear
that important steps have been done from both sides in the last years: researcher are now
trying to disseminate their results to a broader audience while journalists try to adopt a more
technical language educating readers or spectators to enlarge their dictionary. But
unfortunately it is not enough, as some examples of the presentation will show.PublishedRimini, Italy5.9. Formazione e informazioneope
Laboratorio sui comportamenti da adottare in caso di terremoto
No full textSi tratta di un questionario utilizzato come laboratorio per mostre, conferenze, lezioni nelle scuole che prevede la risposta scritta da parte dei partecipanti ed una correzione da parte del ricercatore con discussione dei temi trattatiPublishedMuseo Civico di Storia Naturale Giacomo Doria, Genova5.9. Formazione e informazionerestricte
Laboratorio sui comportamenti da adottare in caso di terremoto
No full textSi tratta di un questionario utilizzato come laboratorio per mostre, conferenze, lezioni nelle scuole che prevede la risposta scritta da parte dei partecipanti ed una correzione da parte del ricercatore con discussione dei temi trattatiPublishedMuseo Civico di Storia Naturale Giacomo Doria, Genova5.9. Formazione e informazionerestricte
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Variations on the Author
Full text link“Variations on the Author” discusses two of Eduardo Coutinho’s recent films (Um Dia na Vida, from 2010, and Últimas Conversas, posthumously released in 2015) and their contribution to the general question of documentary authorship. The director’s filmography is characterized by a consistent yet self-effacing form of authorial self-inscription: Coutinho often features as an interviewer that rather than express opinions propels discourses; an interviewer that is good at listening. This mode of self-inscription characterizes him as an author who is not expressive but who is nonetheless markedly present on the screen. In Um Dia na Vida, however, Coutinho is completely absent form the image, while Últimas Conversas, on the contrary, includes a confessional prologue that moves the director from the margins to the center of his films. This article examines the ways in which these works stand out in the filmography of a director who offers new insights into the notion of cinematic authorship
- …
