跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(44.210.85.190) 您好!臺灣時間:2022/12/06 01:50
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:吳欣怡
研究生(外文):Hsin-Yi Wu
論文名稱:線上百科全書的計量比較研究-以Wikipedia與Knol的高品質文章為例
論文名稱(外文):A Quantitative Comparison for Online Encyclopedias-A Case Study of High Quality Articles of Wikipedia and Knol
指導教授:陳光華陳光華引用關係
口試委員:藍文欽唐牧群
口試日期:2011-06-16
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立臺灣大學
系所名稱:圖書資訊學研究所
學門:傳播學門
學類:圖書資訊檔案學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2011
畢業學年度:99
語文別:中文
論文頁數:91
中文關鍵詞:線上百科全書KnolWikipedia
外文關鍵詞:KnolOnline encyclopediasWikipedia
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:1169
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
本研究企圖以量化方式比較兩種不同類型的線上百科全書,共擬訂了三個重要的研究步驟,包含選定研究對象、建立比較指標以及建構抽樣原則。首先必須選擇研究對象,即Wikipedia與Knol,且分析彼此的特色與差異;第二是建立比較指標,根據系統資訊與文獻回顧發展六大指標,為每年平均瀏覽量、正文字數、網頁可讀性、每年平均被引數、引文數量以及引文類型,從中比較議題熱門程度、內容多寡、適合閱讀的年齡層、網路世界的可見度、引用多少參考資源建構文章內容以及引用資源之廣度(比例)與深度(評比)等面向;其三是建構兩大抽樣原則,為抽樣高品質以及探討相同議題的文章,據此可得20個議題。由於抽樣結果是屬於成對小樣本,較適合採用無母數統計的魏克森符號等級,並根據六大指標比較兩線上百科全書在相似文章之異同,作為改善系統與建置文章的依據。
研究結果顯示Wikipedia與Knol在每年平均瀏覽量、每年平均被引數、引文數量與期刊影響係數有顯著差異;正文字數、網頁可讀性、期刊百分比、書百分比、網路資源百分比、書評與網頁排序無顯著差異。
本研究歸納以下幾點結論。Wikipedia在每年平均瀏覽量、每年平均被引數、引文數量上的數據較高,但任何人都可編輯文章內容,使用者必須小心使用,培養自身辯證資訊真實性的能力,避免吸收錯誤資訊。Knol雖已訂定首選文章之評選指標,但著重在瀏覽量、閱評以及評論,導致8篇文章沒有引文,有待系統發展相關管理規範,敦促文章補齊參考文獻資訊。兩線上百科全書的網頁可讀性都是12,相較於目前美國成年人的閱讀能力,還是稍嫌過高;兩者亦尚未設定服務的目標讀者,可斟酌使用對象調整文章的難易程度。

This study attempts to compare online encyclopedias in a quantitative approach, and conducts three important research designs. One is choosing research targets, that is, Wikipedia and Knol. After deciding the encyclopedis, researcher analyzes and presents their differences. The second step is developing 6 indices, including page views per year, text words, readability, cited numbers per year, citation numbers, and citation types. These indices represent the popularity of the topics, content richness, readability levels, use how much sources to write articles, and width (percentage) and depth (assess) of the citations, respectively. The third step is setting up two main sampling rules, which sample the same topics and choose the high quality articles. According to the sampling rules, totally 20 topics are selected. Finally, the researcher compares the differences using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, suggests the ways to improve systems and construct articles.
The research results show that page views per year, cited numbers per year, citation numbers, and impact factor are statistically significant based on confidence level at 0.95, but the remaining indices are not.
The major findings are shown as follows. When it comes to page views per year and cited numbers per year, values of Wikipedia are higher. However, Wikipedia can be written by everyone, users must use it cautiously and need to cultivate the ability of identifying the authenticity of information to avoid absorbing wrong messages. Although Knol has already set up an assessment criterion, which emphasizes pageviews, reviews and comments, for selecting the best articles, and still has 8 articles without citations. Knol should take it as a serious problem and force to set up related standards. Besides, the readability of Wikipedia and Knol is 12. Due to American adult literacy survey, the readability of these topics is too high to read. Two encyclopedias have not yet set service objects which can depend on to adjust the degree of readability levels.

摘 要 I
Abstract II
目 次 V
表 目 次 VII
圖 目 次 VIII
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景與動機 1
第二節 研究目的與問題 2
第三節 研究範圍與限制 3
第二章 文獻探討 5
第一節 Wikipedia與Knol線上百科全書 5
第二節 歷年Wikipedia的評鑑研究 22
第三節 Wikipedia評鑑研究之探討 26
第三章 研究設計 29
第一節 研究方法與設計 29
第二節 研究對象 32
第三節 比較指標 32
第四節 研究工具與文章 40
第五節 研究步驟 51
第六節 資料處理 52
第四章 研究結果與分析 55
第一節 初級資料處理 55
第二節 兩線上百科全書的比較結果與分析 58
第五章 結論與建議 75
第一節 結論 75
第二節 後續研究建議 79
參考文獻 81
附錄一、Knol的作者與作者背景 89
附錄二、原始資料 91

Amichai-Hamburger, Y., Lamdan, N., Madiel, R., & Hayat, T. (2008). Personality characteristics of Wikipedia members. Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 11(6), 679-681. Retrieved October 18, 2009, from
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18954273
Bairstow, J. (2006). A war of words: An explosion of encyclopedias. Laser Focus World, 42(5), 176.
Battle of Britannica. (2006). The Economist, 378(8471), 65-66. Retrieved October 18, 2009, from http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-143876022.html
Bennington, A. (2008). Dissecting the web through Wikipedia: The popular website offers an avenue to teach information literacy skills. American Libraries, 39(7), 46-48.
Bragues, G. (2009). Wiki-philosophizing in a marketplace of ideas: Evaluating Wikipedia''s entries on seven great minds. MediaTropes eJournal, 2(1), 117–158. Retrieved October 18, 2009, from
http://www.mediatropes.com/index.php/Mediatropes/article/viewFile/5348/224
Chesney, T. (2006). An empirical examination of Wikipedia’s credibility. First Monday, 11(11), 1-11. Retrieved October 18, 2009, from
http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1413/1331
Den Besten, M., & Dalle, J.-M. (2008). Keep it simple: A companion for Simple Wikipedia?. Industry & Innovation, 15(2), 169-178. Retrieved March 24, 2011, from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1097652
Den Besten, M., Rossi, A., Gaio, L., Loubser, M., & Dalle, J.-M. (2008). Mining for practices in community collections: Finds from Simple Wikipedia. Open Source Development, Communities and Quality, 275, 105–120. Retrieved March 24, 2011, from
http://www.springerlink.com/content/f53kk60878242pv3/
Doak, C. C., Doak, L. G., & Root, J. H. (1996). Teaching patients with low literacy skills, Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins. Retrieved March 24, 2011, from http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/healthliteracy/resources/doak-book/
DuBay, W. H. (2004). The principles of readability. Impact Information. Retrieved May 27, 2010, from
http://www.impact-information.com/impactinfo/readability02.pdf
Elvebakk, B. (2008). Philosophy democratized? A comparison between Wikipedia and two other web-based philosophy resources. First Monday, 13(2). Retrieved May 27, 2010, from
http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2091/1938
Fallis, D. (2008). Toward an epistemology of Wikipedia. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 59(10), 1662-1674. Retrieved May 27, 2010, from
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1398032
Foster, A. (2008). What Google''s new encyclopedia means for students and professors. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 55(2), A17.
Giles, J. (2005). Internet encyclopaedias go head to head. Nature, 438(7070), 900-901. Retrieved February 22, 2010, from
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html
Guinnee, E. (2007). A new context for knowledge creation: Letter from the editor. Library student journal. Retrieved February 22, 2010, from
http://www.librarystudentjournal.org/index.php/lsj/article/viewArticle/18/44
Hansen, S., Berente, N., & Lyytinen, K. (2009). Wikipedia, critical social theory, and the possibility of rational discourse. The Information Society, 25(1), 38-59. Retrieved February 22, 2010, from
http://www.informaworld.com/openurl?genre=article&doi=10.1080/01972240802587562&magic=crossref
Kirschner, A. (2006). Adventures in the land of Wikipedia. Chronicle of Higher Education, 53(13), B10-11. Retrieved May 27, 2010, from
http://wwcutie.wordpress.com/2010/12/22/adventures-in-wikipedia-land/
Korfiatis, N. T., Poulos, M., & Bokos, G. (2006). Evaluating authoritative sources using social networks: An insight from Wikipedia. Online Information Review, 30(3), 252-262. Retrieved May 27, 2010, from
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/1468452061067578
Janes, J. (2006). Internet librarian. American Libraries, 37(6), 88.
Jones, J. (2008). Patterns of revision in online writing: A study of Wikipedia''s featured articles. Written Communication, 25(2), 262-289. Retrieved May 27, 2010, from http://wcx.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/0741088307312940
Lauren, B. (2007). Wikipedia''s stock rises. School Library Journal, 53(1), 24.
Lih, A. (2004). Wikipedia as participatory journalism: Reliable sources? Metrics for evaluating collaborative media as a news resource. Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Online Journalism, 1-31. Retrieved May 27, 2010, from
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.117.9104&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Maddox, C. (2007). The promise of Citizendium. Library Journal, 132(15), 91.
Magnus, P. D. (2006). Epistemology and the Wikipedia. North American Computing and Philosophy Conference. Retrieved May 27, 2010, from
http://www.fecundity.com/job/wikipedia.pdf
Magnus, P. D. (2008). Early response to false claims in Wikipedia. First Monday, 13(9). Retrieved May 27, 2010, from
http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2115/2027
Mullan, E. (2009). Information inaccuracy spells trouble for user-generated websites. EContent, 32(3), 10-11.
Nielsen, F. A. (2007). Scientific citations in Wikipedia. First Monday, 12(8), 5. Retrieved May 27, 2010, from
http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1997/1872
Poderi, G. (2009). Comparing featured article groups and revision patterns correlations in Wikipedia. First Monday, 14(5). Retrieved May 27, 2010, from
http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2365/2182
Reading, N., Guyer, A., Leadingham, S., & Sharif, S. (2008). How does Wikipedia measure up?. The Quill, 96(9), 16-19. Retrieved May 27, 2010, from
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_go2540/is_200812/ai_n32308659/
Rector, L. H. (2008). Comparison of Wikipedia and other encyclopedias for accuracy, breadth, and depth in historical articles. Reference Services Review, 36(1), 7-22. Retrieved May 27, 2010, from
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/00907320810851998
Rosenzweig, R. (2006). Can history be open source? Wikipedia and the future of the past. Journal of American History, 93(1), 117-146. Retrieved May 27, 2010, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/4486062?origin=crossref
Schiff, S. (2006). Know it all: Can Wikipedia conquer expertise?. The New Yorker, 36-43. Retrieved October 18, 2009, from
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/07/31/060731fa_fact
Stvilia, B., Twidale, M. B., Smith, L. C., & Gasser, L. (2005a). Assessing information quality of a community-based encyclopedia. Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Quality, 442-454. Retrieved February 22, 2010, from
http://mailer.fsu.edu/~bstvilia/papers/quantWiki.pdf
Stvilia, B., Twidale, M. B., Gasser, L., & Smith, L. C. (2005b). Information quality discussions in Wikipedia. Knowledge Management Nurturing Culture Innovation and Technology Proceedings of the 2005 International Conference on Knowledge Management, 101–113. Retrieved February 22, 2010, from
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.84.3912&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Stvilia, B., Twidale, M. B., Smith, L. C., & Gasser, L. (2008). Information quality work organization in Wikipedia. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(6), 983-1001. Retrieved February 22, 2010, from
http://mailer.fsu.edu/~bstvilia/papers/qualWiki.pdf
Sunstein, C. R. (2007, February 24). A brave new wikiworld. The Washington Post, A19. Retrieved February 22, 2010, from
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/23/AR2007022301596.html
Terdiman, D. (2005). Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica. CNET News. Retrieved August 16, 2010, from
http://news.cnet.com/Study-Wikipedia-as-accurate-as-Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html
Viegas, F. B., Wattenberg, M., & Dave, K. (2004). Studying cooperation and conflict between authors with history flow visualizations. Proceedings of the 2004 conference on Human factors in computing systems, 6(1), 575-582. Retrieved October 22, 2009, from
http://alumni.media.mit.edu/~fviegas/papers/history_flow.pdf
Waters, N. L. (2007). Why you can''t cite Wikipedia in my class. Communications of the ACM, 50(9), 15-17. Retrieved October 22, 2009, from
http://www.netlab.tkk.fi/opetus/s383133/no_Wikipedia.pdf
Weiss, B. D., & Coyne, C. (1997). Communicating with patients who cannot read. New England Journal of Medicine, 337(4), 272-274.
Willinsky, J. (2007). What open access research can do for Wikipedia. First Monday, 12(3). Retrieved May 27, 2010, from
http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1624/1539
Wilkinson, D. M., & Huberman, B. A. (2007). Assessing the value of cooperation in Wikipedia. First Monday, 12(4), 1-6. Retrieved May 27, 2010, from
http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1763/1643
Wilkinson, D. M., & Huberman, B. A. (2007). Cooperation and quality in Wikipedia. Proceedings of the 2007 International Symposium on Wikis 2007, 157-164. Retrieved October 22, 2009, from
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=1296951.1296968
宋佩貞、鄭承昌(2009)。臺灣審定版國民小學英語教科書適讀性研究與應用。教科書研究,2,55-80。上網日期:99年8月16日,檢自:
http://ej.nict.gov.tw/JTR/v02.1/J06v02n01-03.pdf
柯皓仁、羅子文(2007)。Web 2.0概念的圖書館個人化推薦系統。台北市立圖書館館訊,24,1-30。上網日期:99年8月16日,檢自:
http://nctur.lib.nctu.edu.tw/handle/987654321/9029
夏嘉玲、彭淮棟(2008)。Google專家百科Knol 23日上線,維基迎戰。聯合新聞網。上網日期:99年8月16日,檢自:
http://mag.udn.com/mag/world/storypage.jsp?f_ART_ID=138272

QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top