Search (73 results, page 4 of 4)

0.0032224553 = product of:
  0.012889821 = sum of:
    0.012889821 = weight(_text_:for in 1602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012889821 = score(doc=1602,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.14520876 = fieldWeight in 1602, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1602)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.0032224553 = product of:
  0.012889821 = sum of:
    0.012889821 = weight(_text_:for in 2449) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012889821 = score(doc=2449,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.14520876 = fieldWeight in 2449, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2449)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Discusses various ethical issues which are germane to the global information age. Argues that such profuse and rapid technological change demands a reexamination of how society is defined and understood in this increasingly global environment where technology bridges temporal and spatial boundaries. Alongside the comes the necessity for a reevaluation of societal and informational values. Discusses cross-cultural problems associated with the information age; philosophical aspects of technology; and problems of social equity arising from the concept of information rich versus the information poor. Considers the ethical role of libraries in the information age concluding that libraries can dissolve the lines that have been drawn between the have and the have-nots. Librarians must understand and adhere to their traditional ethical guidelines while also moving forward and readjusting wit - not to - technology

0.0032224553 = product of:
  0.012889821 = sum of:
    0.012889821 = weight(_text_:for in 1065) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012889821 = score(doc=1065,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.14520876 = fieldWeight in 1065, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1065)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper explores the ethics of classification. The paper outlines recent conceptual moves in knowledge organization research and shows that contemporary classification theory is based on a pragmatic understanding of the world. It suggests that unjust statements and assumptions about the world challenge contemporary library classifications and that a proper response is needed. It outlines a framework for the development of ethical classifications based on MacIntyre's practice-based ethical theory. It provides a framework within which editors and managers of library classifications can make ethically sound decisions.

0.0032224553 = product of:
  0.012889821 = sum of:
    0.012889821 = weight(_text_:for in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012889821 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.14520876 = fieldWeight in 1149, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1149)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The Cataloguing Code of Ethics, released in January 2021, was the product of a multi-national, multi-year endeavor by the Cataloging Ethics Steering Committee to create a useful framework for the discussion of cataloging ethics. The six Cataloging Ethics Steering Committee members, based in the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada, recount the efforts of the group and the cataloging community leading up to the release of the Code, as well as provide their thoughts on the challenges of creating the document, lessons learned, and the future of the Code.

0.0031894038 = product of:
  0.012757615 = sum of:
    0.012757615 = weight(_text_:for in 5876) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012757615 = score(doc=5876,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.14371942 = fieldWeight in 5876, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5876)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

To start off I would like to briefly address the relationship between indexing and classification, which are very technical activities performed by information professionals, and the concept of social responsibility (the focus of this conference), which refer to the human side of the profession. Although indexing and classification involve many technicalities, the basic objective of these activities is to provide access to informationbearing objects, thereby contributing to the social process of information transfer. Information transfer takes place between authors (creators of information- bearing objects) and information users. The authors have something to communicate, and the users have information needs that must be satisfied by the information professional acting as intermediary. In the process of facilitating this information transfer the indexer and classifier therefore has a responsibility towards both authors and information users. Authors can expect the information professional to represent their creations as accurately and exhaustively as possible in retrieval systems, within the constraints of time and cost. Users can expect the information professional to index and classify in such a way as to ensure that information that can satisfy their information needs will be retrievable within the shortest time and with the least effort possible. One can also see the social responsibility of indexers and classifiers in a broader context. They do not only have a responsibility towards specific authors and users, but also towards communities as a whole, e.g. the scientific community, the business community, or society at large. In the case of the scientific community effective transfer of information about advances in research can be seen as essential for the progress of science. Providing effective and suitable information retrieval systems to make this transfer possible can therefore be seen as a responsibility of information professionals. In a business enterprise the effective organization of business records and other business information sources can make a significant contribution to the smooth operation of the enterprise, may be essential for legal purposes, and can enable management to use the information for decision-making at all levels. The information manager therefore has a responsibility towards the enterprise to properly organize and index all these resources.

0.0031894038 = product of:
  0.012757615 = sum of:
    0.012757615 = weight(_text_:for in 1360) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012757615 = score(doc=1360,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.14371942 = fieldWeight in 1360, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1360)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In A Brief History of Information Ethics, Thomas Froehlich (2004) quickly surveyed under several broad categories some of the many issues that constitute information ethics: under the category of librarianship - censorship, privacy, access, balance in collections, copyright, fair use, and codes of ethics; under information science, which Froehlich sees as closely related to librarianship - confidentiality, bias, and quality of information; under computer ethics - intellectual property, privacy, fair representation, nonmaleficence, computer crime, software reliability, artificial intelligence, and e-commerce; under cyberethics (issues related to the Internet, or cyberspace) - expert systems, artificial intelligence (again), and robotics; under media ethics - news, impartiality, journalistic ethics, deceit, lies, sexuality, censorship (again), and violence in the press; and under intercultural information ethics - digital divide, and the ethical role of the Internet for social, political, cultural, and economic development. Many of the debates in information ethics, on these and other issues, have to do with specific kinds of relationships between subjects. The most important subject and a familiar figure in information ethics is the ethical subject engaged in moral deliberation, whether appearing as the bearer of moral rights and obligations to other subjects, or as an agent whose actions are judged, whether by others or by oneself, according to the standards of various moral codes and ethical principles. Many debates in information ethics revolve around conflicts between those acting according to principles of unfettered access to information and those finding some information offensive or harmful. Subjectivity is at the heart of information ethics. But how is subjectivity understood? Can it be understood in ways that broaden ethical reflection to include problems that remain invisible when subjectivity is taken for granted and when how it is created remains unquestioned? This article proposes some answers by investigating the meaning and role of subjectivity in information ethics.[In an article on cyberethics (2000), I asserted that there was no information ethics in any special sense beyond the application of general ethical principles to information services. Here, I take a more expansive view.]

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.2, S.267-277

0.0027621046 = product of:
  0.0110484185 = sum of:
    0.0110484185 = weight(_text_:for in 1870) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0110484185 = score(doc=1870,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.12446466 = fieldWeight in 1870, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1870)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.7, S.1171-1183

0.0027621046 = product of:
  0.0110484185 = sum of:
    0.0110484185 = weight(_text_:for in 3778) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0110484185 = score(doc=3778,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.12446466 = fieldWeight in 3778, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3778)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This entry discusses many of the ethical considerations in the library and information science professions: collection development, censorship, privacy, reference services, copyright, administrative concerns, information access, technology-related issues, and problems with conflicting loyalties. It surveys the factors that affect ethical deliberations in the information professions: social utility, survival, social responsibility, and respect for individuality. It also looks at professional factors in ethical deliberations, such as professional codes of ethics, and the values that support ethical principles of professional conduct: truth, tolerance, individual liberty, justice and beauty. In the final section, it indicates the kinds of actions to promote ethical conduct at the organizational, professional and individual levels. As a final caveat, it indicates that ethical decisions require deliberation and reflection. While one can articulate values, factors, codes, and actions, they inform ethical reflection that must often confront and negotiate dilemmas and tensions.

0.0027621046 = product of:
  0.0110484185 = sum of:
    0.0110484185 = weight(_text_:for in 708) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0110484185 = score(doc=708,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.12446466 = fieldWeight in 708, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=708)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Ethics are principles which provide a framework for making decisions that best reflect a set of values. Cataloging carries power, so ethical decision-making is crucial. Because cataloging requires decision-making in areas that differ from other library work, cataloging ethics are a distinct subset of library ethics. Cataloging ethics draw on the primary values of serving the needs of users and providing access to materials. Cataloging ethics are not new, but they have received increased attention since the 1970s. Major current issues in cataloging ethics include the creation of a code of ethics; ongoing debate on the appropriate role of neutrality in cataloging misleading materials and in subject heading lists and classification schemes; how and to what degree considerations of privacy and self-determination should shape authority work; and whether or not our current cataloging codes are sufficiently user-focused.

0.0023017537 = product of:
  0.009207015 = sum of:
    0.009207015 = weight(_text_:for in 2513) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009207015 = score(doc=2513,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.103720546 = fieldWeight in 2513, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2513)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Reflections on Information Science have been focused mostly on information access and dissemination, not on ethical aspects of knowledge organization and representation (KOR). This leads us to investigate the existence of ethical values - and problems - which have impact on this field, especially since they are not discussed, although they are revealed in everyday practice. Therefore, and trying to contribute to a further reflection on the lack of literature on ethics in KOR, this paper analyses the Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology JASIST, Journal of Documentation, Knowledge Organization, Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, The Indexer and Ethics and Information Technology in the period between 1995 and 2004. The results reveal two complementary dimensions: one concerning the respect of diversity and the other concerning the specificity warrant. The latter, which may prove the relevance of the theoretical principles announced by Hudon (1997), Beghtol (2002, 2005) and Garcia Gutierrez (2002), relative to a transcultural ethics of mediation that reflects diversity (fitted with a precision that, many times, passes by the dimension of multilingualism), making use of tools that may provide cultural warrant to knowledge representation.

0.0023017537 = product of:
  0.009207015 = sum of:
    0.009207015 = weight(_text_:for in 417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009207015 = score(doc=417,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.103720546 = fieldWeight in 417, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=417)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Studies on ethics in information organization have deeply contributed to the recognition of the social dimension of Information Science. The subject approach to information is linked to an ethical dimension because one of its major concerns is related to its reliability and usefulness in a specific discursive community or knowledge domain. In this direction, we propose, through an exploratory research design with qualitative and inductive characteristics, to identify the specific terminology that Brazilian indexing languages allow for terms relating to male homosexuality. We also analyzed the terms assigned to papers published in the Journal of Homosexuality, Sexualities and Journal of Gay & Lesbian Mental Health between the years 2005 to 2009. From this analysis of terms and the Brazilian indexing languages, we see (1) the Brazilian context, (2) imprecision in the terminology, (3) indications of prejudices disseminated by political correctness, (4) biased representation of the subject matter, (5) and the presence of figures of speech.

0.0023017537 = product of:
  0.009207015 = sum of:
    0.009207015 = weight(_text_:for in 418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009207015 = score(doc=418,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.103720546 = fieldWeight in 418, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=418)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The purpose of this essay is to demonstrate that the mechanisms of power around classifications of gender and sexuality are not always top-down or bottom-up. Instead, the weight of social discipline among members of sexual subcultures themselves helps to create these classifications, often reflecting the nomenclature of subjects and desires within sexual subcultures in a complex relationship to a dominant culture. Critically examining contemporary folksonomic classifications of representations of queer desire within Xtube, a database of online pornography, this paper reveals that social discipline occurs in the stabilization of nomenclature through socialization and through members' overt intervention into each others' selfunderstanding. The Xtube evidence reveals a complex social and cultural structure among members of sexual subcultures by drawing our attention to the particularity of various modes of sexual being and the relationship between those modes and particular configurations of sexual identity. In the process, this paper allows us to reassess, first, a presupposition of folksonomies as free of discipline allowing for their emancipatory potential and, second, the prevailing binary understandings of authority in the development of sexual nomenclatures and classifications as either top-down or bottom-up.

0.0023017537 = product of:
  0.009207015 = sum of:
    0.009207015 = weight(_text_:for in 421) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009207015 = score(doc=421,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.103720546 = fieldWeight in 421, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=421)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper develops an ethical conception of library labor as an intellectual craft that can serve as an alternative to a deterministic discourse of technological transformation. In this paper, the author proposes a model of librarianship as an intellectual craft that can be used as an "ideal type" in comparison to recent transformations in the practice of librarianship. This paper then examines the rise of participatory classification in the realm of leisure in user-generated classification schemes (e.g., folksonomies) as a way of examining some of the difficult ethical questions that this ideal of intellectual craft poses when applied to contemporary conditions. Marx's concept of surplus value is used to examine how donated labor adds to the general knowledge. This paper concludes by advocating for the general expansion of leisure coupled with the promotion public institutions that support the craft of those who organize information in a broadly defined public interest. In an era of dramatic change, such a framework offers a positive ethical account of librarians and information professionals' labor that is not wholly dependent on a discourse of market exchange.