Mediawijsheid of gewoon Google?
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Mediawijsheid of gewoon Google?

on

  • 724 views

Paul Nieuwenhuysen

Paul Nieuwenhuysen

Statistics

Views

Total Views
724
Views on SlideShare
705
Embed Views
19

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0

1 Embed 19

http://www.vvbad.be 19

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • {"5":"Moreover, we observe the spectacular growth of the WWW and of the coverage, strength and diversity of the common, popular WWW search engines. \n","22":"In recent years university faculty considers information discovery as increasingly straightforward, so that the scarce time available for teaching in the domain of information literacy can and should be spent more on enhancing the quality of scientific communication.\n","11":"Google Scholar has evolved in just a few years into a retrieval system that is now comparable to the large, well-known search engines for general scientific information, including the Web of Science from Thompson and Scopus from Elsevier. This applies both quantitatively and qualitatively. \nThe coverage is great and searching is powerful, both classical searching with queries to find documents with words I their text, as well as searching for documents that cite a known seed document (see e.g. Kramer & Sieverts, 2012). \nIn addition, libraries can integrate Google Scholar into their link generator, to make it easier and faster for any user to get access to the full text of an electronic publication or to other services related to an interesting reference given by Google Scholar (see e.g. Nieuwenhuysen et al, 2005).\n","17":"The so-called personalization of large and popular search engines like Google is getting more powerful and important. \nOne effect is that the search results can even better meet the needs or at least the expectations of the concrete, individual user. \nThis is impressive and technologically demanding. \nMost of the smaller, alternative information retrieval systems that the information professional can demonstrate, apply or implement, are running behind in this aspect. \nSo why information literacy training, if the user is satisfied also without? \nAs information professional and even as citizen of the world, we can also criticize this evolution (see e.g. Fertik, 2013); but nevertheless the impact of personalization on users and on their attitude towards information literacy can be significant.\n","6":"Is raising the level of information literacy in the field of searching and finding information still needed for many people? This question arises, because Google keeps on making available search services that offer many advantages in the sense that they are still free, quite user-friendly and fast, while their power, functionality diversity and coverage are still expanding and increasing.\n","7":"Primarily, we want to demonstrate that the growth of popular search engines (qualitatively as well as quantitatively) is real and even highly significant. The basis for this thesis is provided by the outcomes of continual investigation and evaluation of various search systems. Even better --or worse as you may prefer-- many of those forces are bundled in a user friendly way in only one WWW site, namely in Google. At the same time, some information professionals in the audience can perhaps pick up a few brief but useful hints concerning recent search features of search engines, so that they can perhaps even better serve their customers and trainees.\n","24":"Due to the increasing power and the hidden complexity of the common, popular search engines, even information professionals organize workshops / seminars on how to exploit these better in their professional environment. \n","13":"Google Image Search allows a user to formulate a classical query that consists of text to find images that appear in Web pages and thus also to find each document that contains each found image. As we expect from Google, this runs user friendly and fast. This system is already for several years the leader of its kind and it can really be applied effectively, even in scientific research (Nieuwenhuysen, 2010).\n","30":"A reasonable answer to the question in the title of this contribution and in the ‘Problem statement’ is probably "both". It is therefore not "or…or" but "and…and". In other words, the “or” in the title should be understood as a Boolean OR operator. This situation and view is not new; this is already going on for almost 10 years. \n","19":"Perhaps the most important evolution goes on in the famous and popular, classic, regular Google Web search. This started as a system for searching in simple, separate, individual pages in HTML format on the WWW that was still relatively small. Today the WWW is huge (as far as I know larger than the largest database) and the system can also search through files in other formats. Furthermore recent experience and more formal investigation indicates that the search engine can even find information that forms part of one of the many databases that are connected with the Web; in this way Google even rivals some of the more specialized databases that belong to the arsenal of the information professional with expertise in searching and finding information (Nieuwenhuysen, 2012 and more recent results). Therefore, we can ask questions about the so-called “invisible Web” which is the domain that can be exploited well by information experts. If we simply use the term “invisible Web” as a name for the collection of public information that is in principle available to the public, but that cannot be searched by a general, free search engine such as Google, then that collection or domain is shrinking and becoming relatively less important. Fine, but exactly this domain that is by definition difficult to exploit forms a justification for many information professionals to claim that information literacy should be augmented and thus that further training and efforts by information professionals are necessary. In other words, and using a term from the world of ICT, the ‘return on investment’ of the information professional and of information literacy is shrinking in this area.\n","3":"Augmenting and updating everyone's information literacy is desirable. \nInformation literacy includes a part that refers to the appropriate attitudes, knowledge and skills related to searching and finding relevant information, when an information need arises. \nAchieving an adequate level in this domain runs over many years, follows many paths and requires regular updating. \nSince the 1990s, information has become available on the Internet and WWW in a way that is more user friendly, faster and cheaper than before. \nThis is acknowledged by most information professionals, but until now most of them agree\nthat people need a much broader and deeper understanding of the world of information than the superficial, simplistic and limited view that is created or at least supported by the popular WWW search engines; \nthat they still should provide access to information sources and discovery services, which offer a wider range / coverage than the freely accessible WWW and its common search engines.\n","31":"However, formulating it in a simple way, the tension between ‘expensive’ information literacy and ‘cheap and ubiquitous’ Google is constantly increasing. It is NOT the intention of the author to play the role of devil's advocate at a conference of colleagues information professionals, in a destructive way. On the contrary, the author suggests in a constructive way to information professionals and others who work on information literacy in terms of searching and finding information, that preparing a proper, solid justification of the costs of their activities is appropriate more than ever before. We need to justify our efforts and the budgets involved, so that we can continue our valuable work, probably even better motivated than ever before.\n","20":"The strengthening of the common search engines, as mentioned above, has consequences in practical actions in the field of information literacy. \nIn my own activities, both as professor / faculty member and as workshop participant and workshop leader inside and outside of the university, I have experienced recently the following:\n","9":"Google Scholar has evolved in just a few years into a retrieval system that is now comparable to the large, well-known search engines for general scientific information, including the Web of Science from Thompson and Scopus from Elsevier. This applies both quantitatively and qualitatively. \nThe coverage is great and searching is powerful, both classical searching with queries to find documents with words I their text, as well as searching for documents that cite a known seed document (see e.g. Kramer & Sieverts, 2012). \nIn addition, libraries can integrate Google Scholar into their link generator, to make it easier and faster for any user to get access to the full text of an electronic publication or to other services related to an interesting reference given by Google Scholar (see e.g. Nieuwenhuysen et al, 2005).\n","26":"In the workshops that I lead on information discovery for NON-information professionals, more time has to be spent on the common search engines, as participants already know the basics and they want to understand and exploit the systems better, while they are less impressed with more classical, so-called professional systems.\n","15":"Since 2011, Google offers even ‘reverse image search’, which means that the user can formulate a query that consists mainly of an image, in order to find similar images in the WWW and thus also those WWW pages that contain these images. \nThis system is also user friendly and fast. \nSuddenly, this is again the leader of its kind and it offers interesting applications (Nieuwenhuysen, 2013, proceedings of ICOASL online).\n","4":"However, this view / opinion / attitude, is continually assessed and criticized by managers who have to see to it that available funds are spent as efficiently as possible, and even by outsiders in their role as citizens or shareholders, who demand accountability for the expenditure of the money that they consider partly as their own property. \n","21":"In faculties: We can see the broad domain of academic information literacy as including parts that deal with\ninformation discovery\npersonal information management,\nscientific communication, for instance in the form of live lectures and poster presentations. \n"}

Mediawijsheid of gewoon Google? Mediawijsheid of gewoon Google? Presentation Transcript

  • Mediawijsheid of gewoon Google? Information literacy OR Google? Prepared to support a lecture at the bi-annual conference Informatie aan Zee = IaZ in Oostende, Belgium, September 12-13, 2013 by Paul.Nieuwenhuysen@vub.ac.be 2B114 Vrije Universiteit Brussel B-1050 Brussel Belgium 1
  • 2 These slides should be available from the WWW site http://www.vub.ac.be/BIBLIO/nieuwenhuysen/presentations/ (note: BIBLIO and not biblio)
  • 3 Information literacy OR Google? Introduction / context Information discovery View slide
  • 4 Information literacy OR Google? Introduction / context Information discovery View slide
  • 5 Information literacy OR Google? Introduction / context ROI?!
  • 6 Information literacy OR Google? Problem statement
  • 7 Information literacy OR Google? Findings
  • 8 Information literacy OR Google? Findings
  • 9 Information literacy OR Google? Findings
  • 10 Information literacy OR Google? Findings
  • 11 Information literacy OR Google? Findings
  • 12 Information literacy OR Google? Findings        Large coverage Simple to start Classical as well as citation searching Fast Relevance ranking Offers citing articles Can be integrated in a link generator
  • 13 Information literacy OR Google? Findings
  • 14 Information literacy OR Google? Findings
  • 15 Information literacy OR Google? Findings
  • 16 Information literacy OR Google? Findings
  • 17 Information literacy OR Google? Findings  Personalization
  • 18 Information literacy OR Google? Findings
  • 19 Information literacy OR Google? Findings n tio lu vo E Hidden web Hidden web
  • 20 Information literacy OR Google? Findings Consequences for higher education
  • 21 Information literacy OR Google? Findings Information Scientific discovery communication
  • 22 Information literacy OR Google? Findings Scientific communication: writing, Information discovery creating posters, lectures with slides
  • 23 Information literacy OR Google? Findings Consequences for professional information literacy
  • 24 Information literacy OR Google? Findings .
  • 25 Information literacy OR Google? Findings Consequences for NON-professional information literacy
  • 26 Information literacy OR Google? Findings .
  • 27 Information literacy OR Google? Findings Consequences for information literacy concerning printed materials
  • 28 Information literacy OR Google? Findings .
  • 29 Information literacy OR Google? Conclusions
  • 30 Information literacy OR Google? Conclusion 1 OR NOT with OR as a question, but with OR as the Boolean operator.
  • 31 Information literacy OR Google? Conclusion 2 ROI should be made clear to stakeholders
  • 32 Information literacy OR Google? Conclusion 3 All information takes the form of a web page that can be found by a search engine  What is scientific knowledge? What may be disinformation? when the format does not help the user anymore, to make the distinction  Educators should spend more attention to the fundamentals of science and scientific communication
  • 33 Questions are welcome