Search (8 results, page 1 of 1)

0.07864208 = product of:
  0.19660519 = sum of:
    0.16190538 = weight(_text_:books in 420) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16190538 = score(doc=420,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.24756333 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.6539958 = fieldWeight in 420, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=420)
    0.03469981 = weight(_text_:22 in 420) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03469981 = score(doc=420,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 420, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=420)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The conflict between librarians' ethics and their responsibilities in the process of progressive collection management, which applies the principles of cost accounting to libraries, to call attention to the "bad books" in their collections that are compromised by age, error, abridgement, expurgation, plagiarism, copyright violation, libel, or fraud, is discussed. According to Charles Cutter, notes in catalog records should call attention to the best books but ignore the bad ones. Libraries that can afford to keep their "bad books," however, which often have a valuable second life, must call attention to their intellectual contexts in notes in the catalog records. Michael Bellesiles's Arming America, the most famous case of academic fraud at the turn of the twenty-first century, is used as a test case. Given the bias of content enhancement that automatically pulls content from the Web into library catalogs, catalog notes for "bad books" may be the only way for librarians to uphold their ethical principles regarding collection management while fulfilling their professional responsibilities to their users in calling attention to their "bad books."

Date

27. 9.2012 14:22:00

0.018507326 = product of:
  0.09253663 = sum of:
    0.09253663 = weight(_text_:books in 1580) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09253663 = score(doc=1580,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24756333 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.37378973 = fieldWeight in 1580, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1580)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Taking the Oklahoma bombing as a base, the author argues that although social scientists differ about the effects of pornography, there are no parallel arguments that bomb manuals on the Internet give safe vent to potential bombers. While instructions for making bombs are available in books, the procedures involved in accessing such literature in libraries may deter would be bombers. In contrast, easy access through the Internet will encourage them. It is argued that materials that endanger lives should be banned from the Internet on the basis that every right, even free speech, needs to be balanced with others, especially the right to live

0.018507326 = product of:
  0.09253663 = sum of:
    0.09253663 = weight(_text_:books in 1862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09253663 = score(doc=1862,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24756333 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.37378973 = fieldWeight in 1862, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1862)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Once taken for granted as morally legitimate, legal protection of intellectual property rights have come under fire in the last 30 years as new technologies have evolved and severed the link between expression of ideas and such traditional material-based media as books and magazines. These advances in digital technology have called attention to unique features of intellectual content that problematize intellectual property protection; any piece of intellectual content, for example, can be simultaneously appropriated by everyone in the world without thereby diminishing the supply of that content available to others. This essay provides an overview and assessment of the arguments and counterarguments on the issue of whether intellectual property should be legally protected.

0.011103938 = product of:
  0.055519693 = sum of:
    0.055519693 = weight(_text_:22 in 3027) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055519693 = score(doc=3027,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3027, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3027)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 2.1999 15:57:43

0.011103938 = product of:
  0.055519693 = sum of:
    0.055519693 = weight(_text_:22 in 2833) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055519693 = score(doc=2833,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2833, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2833)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.106-110

0.011103938 = product of:
  0.055519693 = sum of:
    0.055519693 = weight(_text_:22 in 248) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055519693 = score(doc=248,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 248, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=248)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 2.1999 15:50:50

0.006939962 = product of:
  0.03469981 = sum of:
    0.03469981 = weight(_text_:22 in 1868) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03469981 = score(doc=1868,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1868, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1868)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

1. 6.2008 12:22:41

0.0049072937 = product of:
  0.024536468 = sum of:
    0.024536468 = weight(_text_:22 in 2392) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024536468 = score(doc=2392,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.13679022 = fieldWeight in 2392, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2392)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Classification

323.44/5 22 (GBV;LoC)

DDC

323.44/5 22 (GBV;LoC)