-
Fallis, D.: Social epistemology and information science (2006)
0.03
0.028289651 = product of:
0.056579303 = sum of:
0.056579303 = product of:
0.113158606 = sum of:
0.113158606 = weight(_text_:22 in 4368) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.113158606 = score(doc=4368,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18279637 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052200247 = queryNorm
0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 4368, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4368)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 13. 7.2008 19:22:28
-
MacFarlane, A.; Missaoui, S.; Makri, S.; Gutierrez Lopez, M.: Sender vs. recipient-orientated information systems revisited (2022)
0.01
0.011986194 = product of:
0.023972388 = sum of:
0.023972388 = product of:
0.09588955 = sum of:
0.09588955 = weight(_text_:authors in 607) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09588955 = score(doc=607,freq=8.0), product of:
0.23797122 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.052200247 = queryNorm
0.40294603 = fieldWeight in 607, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=607)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Purpose Belkin and Robertson (1976a) reflected on the ethical implications of theoretical research in information science and warned that there was potential for abuse of knowledge gained by undertaking such research and applying it to information systems. In particular, they identified the domains of advertising and political propaganda that posed particular problems. The purpose of this literature review is to revisit these ideas in the light of recent events in global information systems that demonstrate that their fears were justified. Design/methodology/approach The authors revisit the theory in information science that Belkin and Robertson used to build their argument, together with the discussion on ethics that resulted from this work in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The authors then review recent literature in the field of information systems, specifically information retrieval, social media and recommendation systems that highlight the problems identified by Belkin and Robertson. Findings Information science theories have been used in conjunction with empirical evidence gathered from user interactions that have been detrimental to both individuals and society. It is argued in the paper that the information science and systems communities should find ways to return control to the user wherever possible, and the ways to achieve this are considered. Research limitations/implications The ethical issues identified require a multidisciplinary approach with research in information science, computer science, information systems, business, sociology, psychology, journalism, government and politics, etc. required. This is too large a scope to deal with in a literature review, and we focus only on the design and implementation of information systems (Zimmer, 2008a) through an information science and information systems perspective. Practical implications The authors argue that information systems such as search technologies, social media applications and recommendation systems should be designed with the recipient of the information in mind (Paisley and Parker, 1965), not the sender of that information. Social implications Information systems designed ethically and with users in mind will go some way to addressing the ill effects typified by the problems for individuals and society evident in global information systems. Originality/value The authors synthesize the evidence from the literature to provide potential technological solutions to the ethical issues identified, with a set of recommendations to information systems designers and implementers.
-
Lievrouw, A.A.; Farb, S.E.: Information and equity (2002)
0.01
0.011183828 = product of:
0.022367656 = sum of:
0.022367656 = product of:
0.044735312 = sum of:
0.044735312 = weight(_text_:p in 4243) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.044735312 = score(doc=4243,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18768665 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.052200247 = queryNorm
0.23835106 = fieldWeight in 4243, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4243)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Inequities in information creation, production, distribution, and use are nothing new. Throughout human history some people have been more educated, better connected, more widely traveled, or more wellinformed than others. Until recently, relatively few have enjoyed the benefits of literacy, and even fewer could afford to own books. In the age of mass media, societies and social groups have varied dramatically in terms of their access to and uses of print, radio, television, film, telephone, and telegraph. What is new, however, is the growing attention being given to informational inequities in an increasingly information-driven global economy. Across disciplinary, national, and cultural boundaries, the widespread agreement is that the use of newer information and communication technologies (ICTs), particularly the Internet, has accelerated the production, circulation, and consumption of information in every form. But also a growing sense has arisen that ICTs have helped to exacerbate existing differences in information access and use, and may even have fostered new types of barriers. As Hess and Ostrom (2001, p. 45) point out, "Distributed digital technologies have the dual capacity to increase as well as restrict access to information."
-
Cornelius, I.: Theorizing information for information science (2002)
0.01
0.0065238997 = product of:
0.0130477995 = sum of:
0.0130477995 = product of:
0.026095599 = sum of:
0.026095599 = weight(_text_:p in 4244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026095599 = score(doc=4244,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18768665 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.052200247 = queryNorm
0.13903812 = fieldWeight in 4244, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4244)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Shannon provides a model whereby an information source selects a desired message, out of a set of possible messages, that is then formed into a signal. The signal is sent over the communication channel to a receiver, which then transforms the signal back to a message that is relayed to its destination (Shannon & Weaver, 1949/1963, p. 7). Problems connected with this model have remained with us. Some of the concepts are ambiguous; the identification of information with a process has spancelled the debate; the problems of measuring the amount of information, the relation of information to meaning, and questions about the truth value of information have remained. Balancing attention between the process and the act of receiving information, and deterrnining the character of the receiver, has also been the focus of work and debate. Information science has mined work from other disciplines involving information theory and has also produced its own theory. The desire for theory remains (Hjorland, 1998; Saracevic, 1999), but what theory will deliver is unclear. The distinction between data and information, or communication and information, is not of concern here. The convention that data, at some point of use, become information, and that information is transferred in a process of communication suffices for this discussion. Substitution of any of these terms is not a problem. More problematic is the relationship between information and knowledge. It seems accepted that at some point the data by perception, or selection, become information, which feeds and alters knowledge structures in a human recipient. What that process of alteration is, and its implications, remain problematic. This review considers the following questions: 1. What can be gleaned from the history of reviews of information in information science? 2. What current maps, guides, and surveys are available to elaborate our understanding of the issues? 3. Is there a parallel development of work outside information science an information theory of use to us? 4. Is there a dominant view of information within information science? 5. What can we say about issues like measurement, meaning, and misinformation? 6. Is there other current work of relevance that can assist attempts, in information science, to develop a theory of information?
