請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/48051
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 唐牧群(Muh-Chyun Tang) | |
dc.contributor.author | Chia-Hsin Ku | en |
dc.contributor.author | 古佳馨 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-15T06:45:11Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2012-07-07 | |
dc.date.copyright | 2011-07-07 | |
dc.date.issued | 2011 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2011-06-28 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 參考文獻
中文部份 高偉珍(2008)。問答網站專家尋找機制之研究。國立交通大學資訊管理研究所碩 士論文,未出爯,新竹市。 唐爰群、吳宛青(2009)。由透鏡理論看大學圖書館讀者選書決策過程。圖書資訊 學刊,7(1/2),37-52。 創市際市場研究顧問(2007年4月4日)。八成四網友網上蒐資訊首選工具網路搜 尋引擎。2010年4月29日,取自: http://www.insightxplorer.com/news/news_04_04_07.html 雅虎資訊(2009)。Yahoo!奇摩企業部落格。2010年5月27日,取自: http://www.wretch.cc/blog/ycorpblog/11345234 雅虎資訊(2010)。Yahoo!奇摩知識+。2010年4月30日,取自: http://tw.knowledge.yahoo.com/ 臺灣網路資訊中心(2010)。2010年臺灣寬頻網路使用調查報告出爐。2010年4 月29日,取自: http://www.twnic.net.tw/download/200307/1001a.doc 駱少康(2008)。線上知識分享中訊息特徵與發訊者特徵對於訊息可信度之影響。 行政院國家科學委員會補助專題研究計畫成果報告(報告編號:NSC96-2416- H-034-005),未出爯。 英文部分 Adamic, L. A., Zhang, J., Bakshy, E. & Ackerman, M. S. (2008). Knowledge Sharing and Yahoo Answers: Everyone Knows Something. In WWW '08: Proceeding of the 17th international conference on World Wide Web, 665-674. Bernstam, E. V., Shelton, D. M., Walji, M. & Meric-Benstam, F. (2005).Instruments to assess the quality of health information on the World Wide Web: what can our patients actually use? International Journal of Medical Informatics, 74, 13-19. Brunswik, E., Hammond, K. R. & Stewart, T. R. (2001). The essential Brunswik: Beginnings explications, applications. New York: Oxford University Press. Connolly, T., Arkes, H. R., & Hammond, K.R. (2000). Judgment and Decision Making: An Interdisciplinary Reader. New York: Cambridge University Press. Depauw, J. (2009). Information quality assessment and source selection on the Internet for competitive intelligence: fieldwork research on 53 belgian executives. Observatorio Journal, 10, 1-19. Eisenhardt, K. (1989). Building theory from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550. Eysenbach, G. & Kolher, C. (2002). How do consumers search for and appraise health information on the world wide web? Qualitative study using focus groups, usability tests, and indepth interviews. BMJ, 324, 573-576. Eysenbach, G.., Powell, J., Kuss, O. & Sa, E.-R. (2002). Empirical Studies Assessing the Quality of Health Information for Consumers on the World Wide Web. JAMA, 287(20), 2691-2700. Farber, M. (1994). The quality of information on the internet. Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, 26, S75-S78. Fogg, B. J. (2003). Prominence-Interpretation Theory: Explaining how people assess credibility online. Proceeding of ACM CHI 2003 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 722-723. New York: ACM Press. Fritch, J. W., & Cromwell, R. L. (2001).Evaluating Internet resources: Identity, affiliation, and cognitive authority in a networked world. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52, 499-507. Harper, F. M., Moy, D & Konstan J. A. (2009). Facts or friends? Distinguishing informational and conversational questions in social Q & A sites. Proceedings of the 27th international conference on Human factors in computing systems, 759-768. Harper, F. M., Raban, D., Rafaeli, S. & Konstan, J. A. (2008). Predictors of answer quality in online Q&A sites. CHI 2008 proceedings, 865-874. Herrera-Viedma, E., Pasi, G, Lopez-Herrera, A. G. & Porcel, C. (2006). Evaluating the Information Quality of Web Sites: A Methodology Based on Fuzzy Computing With Words. Journal of American Society for Information Science and Technology , 57(4), 538-549. Hilligoss, B. & Rieh, S. Y. (2008). Developing a unifying framework of credibility assessment: Construct, heuristics, and interaction in context. Information Processing and Management, 44, 1467–1484. Hughes, B., Wareham, J. & Joshi, I. (2010). Doctors' Online Information Needs, Cognitive Search Strategies, and Judgments of Information Quality and Cognitive Authority: How Predictive Judgments Introduce Bias Into Cognitive Search Models. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(3), 433-452. Jeong, M. (1998). Measurement of information quality on lodging websites: An experimental study with eight hypothetical lodging websites. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University. Jeong, M. & Lambert, C. U. (2001). Adaptation of an information quality framework to measure customers’ behavioral intentions to use lodging Web sites. Hospitality Management, 20, 129–146. Kim, S. & Oh, S. (2009). Users' relevance criteria for evaluating answers in a social Q&A site. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(4), 716-727. Klobas, J. E. (1995). Beyond information quality: Fitness for purpose and electronic information resource use. Journal of Information Science, 21(2), 95-114. Kunst, H., Groot, D., Latthe, P. M., Latthe, M. & Khan, K. S. (2002). Accuracy of information on apparently credible websites: survey of five common health topics. BMJ, 324, 581–582. Kurubacak, G. (2006). Evaluating information quality: Hidden biases on the Children’s Web pages. The 3rd International Children and Communication Congress & 3rd International Children Films Festival & Congress ‘Tailoring Identities for Future Children’ (in press). Istanbul: Istanbul University, College of Communication. Levy, M. (2009). WEB 2.0 implications on knowledge management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(1), 120-134. Lipshitz, R., Klein, G., Orasanu, J. & Salas, E. (2001). Taking stock of naturalistic decision making. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 14(5), 331 - 352. Merriam-Webster (2010). Dictionary and Thesaurus- Merriam-Webster Online. Retrieved June 8, 2010, from: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/judge Metzger, M. J. (2007). Making sense of credibility on the Web: Models for evaluating online information and recommendations for future research. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(13), 2078-2091. Metzger, M. J., Flanagin, A. J., & Zwarun, L. (2003). College student Web use, perceptions of information credibility, and verification behavior. Computers & Education, 41 , 271-290. Newell, B. R., Lagnado, D. A., & Shanks, D. R. (2007). Straight choices : the psychology of decision making. New York : Psychology Press. Olaisen, J. (1990). Information quality factors and the cognitive authority of electronic information. In I. Wormell (Ed.), Information quality: Definitions and dimensions (pp.99-120). Los Angeles: Taylor Graham. Petty, R. E. & Cacioppo, J. E. (1984). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123-205. Rieh, S. Y. (2002). Judgment of information quality and cognitive authority in the Web. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53, 145-161. Rieh, S. Y. & Belkin, N. J. (2000). Interaction on the Web: Scholars’ judgment of information quality and cognitive authority. Proceeding of the 63rd ASIS Annual Meeting, 37, 25-38. Ryu, S., Ho, S. H., & Han, I. (2003). Knowledge sharing behavior of physicians in hospitals. Expert Systems with Applications, 25, 113–122. Schmied, J. (2008). English projects in teaching and research in Central Europe : proceedings of the Freiberg Conference, May 04 - 06, 2007. Gottingen : Cuvillier. Shah, C. & Pomerantz, J. (2010). Evaluating and predicting answer quality in community QA. Retrieved September 13, 2010 from: http://www.unc.edu/~chirags/papers/Shah_SIGIR2010.pdf Wang, P. & Soergel, D. (1998). A cognitive model of document use during a research project. Study I. Document selection. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49(2), 115-133. Wathen, C. N. & Burkell, J. (2002).Believe it or not: Factors Influencing Credibility on the Web. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(2), 134-144. Xu, Y. (2007). Relevance judgment in epistemic and hedonic information searches. Journal of the American Society for Information Sciences and Technology, 58(2), 179-189. Yahoo! Inc. (2010). Yahoo! Answers. Retrieved April 29, 2010, from: http://answers.yahoo.com/ Zhang, H. (2008). Research on Knowledge Sharing Mechanism Based on Web 2.0. In 2008 International Seminar on Future Information Technology and Management Engineering(FITME’08). Leicestershire, United Kingdom. Zheng, Y. M., Zhao, K. & Stylianou, A. (2009). Information quality and system quality in online communities: an empirical investigation. SIGHCI (Special Interest Group on Human-Computer Interaction) 2009 Proceedings, 1-5. | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/48051 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 開放性知識分享平台是現今網路使用者倚重的網路資源,有大量使用者在此類平台上搜尋與分享資訊。然而,此種平台缺乏資訊品質控管的機制,任何網路使用者都可以在平台中分享資訊,使資訊品質良莠不齊,因此,探討使用者如何判斷資訊品質成為重要議題。Yahoo!奇摩知識+是我國極受歡迎的開放性知識分享平台,本研究因此選擇以該平台為研究對象,探究網路使用者判斷資訊品質之情形。
本研究以12名國立臺灣大學的學生為受試者,生農、理工、人文社會背景各有4位,博士生1名、碩士生3名、大學生8名。受試者必須執行四種類型的模擬任務,四類任務分別為「解決特定問題之交談型問題(類型I)」、「解決特定問題之資訊型問題(類型II)」、「非解決特定問題之資訊型問題(類型III)」、「非解決特定問題之交談型問題(類型IV)」,每類任務都選出一項任務執行,12位受試者皆必須執行四項任務。受試者先閱讀模擬任務之內容,並根據任務內容從研究者預先選出的相關回答中選擇三至六筆感到滿意的回答。任務執行過程以Morae軟體全程錄製,研究者則透過電腦連線以另一台電腦觀察受試者執行任務之過程,任務結束後立即以訪談法釐清受試者的行為與想法。 研究結果發現,受試者在判斷資訊品質時會採取預測性判斷和評估性判斷兩種策略,且此兩種判斷策略會交替性進行(交替性模式)、階段性進行(階段性模式),亦有時而交替、時而階段進行之情形(混合性模式)。受試者判斷資訊品質時感知到的線索可分為五大類:資訊形式類、社會因素類、詮釋資料類、資訊內容類、時間因素類。線索詮釋結果分為正面詮釋和負面詮釋,正面詮釋導致受試者點擊或選擇資訊,負面詮釋則使得受試者不願點擊或選擇資訊。此外,相同線索可能得到相反的詮釋結果,線索詮釋極具主觀性。資訊品質判準除了過去研究已提出的內容類、認知類、效用類、資訊來源類、外部因素類與社會情感類,本研究另發現社會評價類和時間因素類,判準共計分為八大類型。最後,任務類型會影響線索感知次數、資訊品質判準使用次數、判斷策略使用以及資訊品質判斷共識,對於線索詮釋的影響則極小,32種線索中只有1種線索因為任務類型不同而產生詮釋差異。研究最後試提出資訊品質判斷模型。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | Nowadays, open knowledge sharing system is on of the Internet resources which users rely on. Lots of users search and share information in this kind of system. However, the state that without information quality control mechanism in such system allows any user to share information, leads to information quality discrepancy. Therefore, investigating how users judging information quality turns into an issue. Yahoo! Knowledge is one kind of such system, which is very popular in Taiwan. Thus, this study selected Yahoo! Knowledge to be the study object.
This study recruited 12 subjects from National Taiwan University. Subjects were from 3 disciplines: 4 from biology and agriculture, 4 from science and engineering, and 4 from liberal arts and social science. 1 subject was PhD student, 3 subjects were graduate students, and 8 subjects were undergraduate students. All subjects were asked to perform four types of simulated tasks, inclusive of “problem solving and conversational question (type I)”, “problem solving and informational question (type II)”, “non-problem solving and informational question (type III)”, and “non-problem solving and conversational question (type IV)”. For four types, subjects had to choose one task which he/she was more interested in. After choosing task, subjects had to read the text of task and select 3 to 6 answers which he/she was most satisfied with according to the content of task. All the relevant answers were selected previously by researcher. The process of task performing was recorded by Morae software. Via PC connecting, researcher observed the subject by another computer. After the subject finished 4 tasks, researcher interviewed with him/her immediately to clarify his/her thoughts and actions. Results show that users make predictive judgments and evaluative judgments when making judgments of information quality. Besides, subjects make predictive judgments and evaluative judgments by iterative way, two-stage way, or mixed way (combining the iterative way with two stage way). The study also finds that the clues noticed by subjects when making judgments can be classified into 5 categories, including “information form”, “social aspect”, “metadata”, “information content”, and “time aspect”. The results of clue interpretation are divided into “positive interpretation” and “negative interpretation”; the former leads to the willingness to click or select information and the later leads to rejection to do so. Furthermore, the same clue may be interpreted into the opposite results, which means that clue interpretation is highly subjective. Previous study has discovered 6 classes of information quality criteria, including “content”, “cognitive”, “utility”, “information source”, “extrinsic”, “socio-emotional”. This study not only finds these classes again, but also discovers new classes: “social assessment” and “time aspect”. In sum, information quality criteria have 8 classes. Another significant finding is that task type affects on the frequency of clue noticing, the frequency of criterion using, dependence on predictive judgment or evaluative judgment, and consensus about information quality. However, task type has little impacts on clue interpretation; in 32 kinds of clues, there is only one kind which has interpretation divergence due to task type. To summarize the research results, this study presents the model of judgments of information quality. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-15T06:45:11Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-100-R97126010-1.pdf: 2485178 bytes, checksum: 6c5ec94ddc3984b21eeee8013d97ee05 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2011 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 目次
摘要 ............................................................................................................................... i Abstract ....................................................................................................................... iii 目次 .............................................................................................................................. vi 表次 ............................................................................................................................ viii 圖次 ............................................................................................................................... x 第一章 緒論 .................................................................................................................. 1 第一節 問題陳述 .................................................................................................... 1 第二節 研究目的與問題 ........................................................................................ 5 第三節 研究範圍與限制 ........................................................................................ 7 第四節 名詞解釋 .................................................................................................... 9 第二章 文獻分析 ........................................................................................................ 13 第一節 開放性知識分享平台 .............................................................................. 13 第二節 Yahoo!奇摩知識+ .................................................................................... 22 第三節 網路資訊品質 .......................................................................................... 28 第四節 相關理論 .................................................................................................. 37 第三章 研究設計與實施 ............................................................................................ 65 第一節 研究設計 .................................................................................................. 65 第二節 研究實施 .................................................................................................. 78 第三節 研究工具 .................................................................................................. 82 第四章 研究結果 ........................................................................................................ 83 第一節 受詴者背景分析 ...................................................................................... 83 第二節 資訊判斷行為分析 .................................................................................. 92 第三節 資訊品質判斷 ......................................................................................... 112 第四節 任務類型與資訊品質判斷 .................................................................... 208 第五節 綜合討論 ................................................................................................ 236 第五章 結論與建議 .................................................................................................. 255 第一節 結論 ........................................................................................................ 255 第二節 建議 ........................................................................................................ 260 第三節 未來研究建議 ........................................................................................ 261 參考文獻 .................................................................................................................... 265 附件一 受詴者招募資訊 .......................................................................................... 271 附件二 問卷調查 ...................................................................................................... 272 附件三 模擬任務 ...................................................................................................... 274 附件四 訪談大綱 ...................................................................................................... 276 附件五 研究同意書 .................................................................................................. 278 附件六 各任務線索感知之詳細列表 ...................................................................... 279 附件七 各任務使用判準之詳細列表 ...................................................................... 283 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 使用者判斷開放性知識分享平台資訊品質之研究─以Yahoo!奇摩知識+為例 | zh_TW |
dc.title | A study of users’ information quality judgment on open knowledge sharing system: A case study on Yahoo! Knowledge | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 99-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 朱則剛(Tsa-Kang Chu),林珊如(Shan-Ju Lin CHANG) | |
dc.subject.keyword | 開放性知識分享平台,Yahoo!奇摩知識+,網路資訊品質,資訊品質判斷, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | open knowledge sharing system,Yahoo! Knowledge,online information quality,judgments of information quality, | en |
dc.relation.page | 288 | |
dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2011-06-28 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 文學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 圖書資訊學研究所 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 圖書資訊學系 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-100-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 2.43 MB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。