@misc{ComberMooneyPurvesetal.2016,
  author    = {Comber, Alexis and Mooney, Peter and Purves, Ross S. and Rocchini, Duccio and Walz, Ariane},
  title     = {Crowdsourcing: it matters who the crowd are},
  series = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  journal   = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  number    = {539},
  issn      = {1866-8372},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-41089},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-410894},
  pages     = {19},
  year      = {2016},
  abstract  = {Volunteered geographical information (VGI) and citizen science have become important sources data for much scientific research. In the domain of land cover, crowdsourcing can provide a high temporal resolution data to support different analyses of landscape processes. However, the scientists may have little control over what gets recorded by the crowd, providing a potential source of error and uncertainty. This study compared analyses of crowdsourced land cover data that were contributed by different groups, based on nationality (labelled Gondor and Non-Gondor) and on domain experience (labelled Expert and Non-Expert). The analyses used a geographically weighted model to generate maps of land cover and compared the maps generated by the different groups. The results highlight the differences between the maps how specific land cover classes were under-and over-estimated. As crowdsourced data and citizen science are increasingly used to replace data collected under the designed experiment, this paper highlights the importance of considering between group variations and their impacts on the results of analyses. Critically, differences in the way that landscape features are conceptualised by different groups of contributors need to be considered when using crowdsourced data in formal scientific analyses. The discussion considers the potential for variation in crowdsourced data, the relativist nature of land cover and suggests a number of areas for future research. The key finding is that the veracity of citizen science data is not the critical issue per se. Rather, it is important to consider the impacts of differences in the semantics, affordances and functions associated with landscape features held by different groups of crowdsourced data contributors.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{Edinger2017,
  author    = {Edinger, Sebastian},
  title     = {Eine kleine Genealogie des Verh{\"a}ltnisses von Anthropologie und Ontologie im Denken Adornos mit einem Seitenblick auf Ulrich Sonnemann},
  series = {Das Leben im Menschen oder der Mensch im Leben?},
  journal   = {Das Leben im Menschen oder der Mensch im Leben?},
  publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam},
  address   = {Potsdam},
  isbn      = {978-3-86956-382-4},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-396086},
  pages     = {255 -- 270},
  year      = {2017},
  language  = {de}
}
@masterthesis{Nessel2014,
  type      = {Bachelor Thesis},
  author    = {Nessel, Camille},
  title     = {Die Logik des selbstlosen Gebens im Spiegel des normativen und rationalen Paradigmas},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-88529},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  pages     = {53},
  year      = {2014},
  abstract  = {The word altruism derives from the French sociologist Auguste Comte, who also happens to be the founder of sociology. It can be best described with the term selflessness and is mostly regarded in contrast to the so called rational and egocentric behaviour of human beings. People who support the idea of a rational protagonist often reject the idea of altruism. On the contrary people who believe in altruistic human beings are rather rare and do not support the idea of a purely egoist human being. The presented BA Thesis examined this controversy on the example of Emile Durkheim and James Coleman who both represent different ideas when it comes to altruism. While Durkheim sees altruism as an evident feature of human nature, Coleman denies its existence. Instead, he is assuming that human behaviour is driven by egoism and he therefore exemplifies the rational-choice concept. The opposing approaches towards altruism are rooted in the different premises, which also lead to different methodological paths in social or sociological theory. The methodological individualism portrayed through Coleman starts from an egocentric, rational stakeholder, whereas the methodological collectivism finds it origin in a normative world view. The paper analysed these approaches. By comparing both ontologies I tried to show the limits of both theories and a way out of the methodological dispute and subsequently between the altruism-egoism controversies.},
  language  = {de}
}