Search (34 results, page 2 of 2)

  • × theme_ss:"Informationsethik"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. Day, R.E.: Tropes, history, and ethics in professional discourse and information science (2000) 0.00 
    0.001674345 = product of:
  0.00334869 = sum of:
    0.00334869 = product of:
      0.00669738 = sum of:
        0.00669738 = weight(_text_:a in 4589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00669738 = score(doc=4589,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 4589, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4589)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This article argues that professional discourses tend to align themselves with dominant ideological and social forces by means of language. Tn twentieth century modernity, the use of the trope of 'science' and related terms in professional theory is a common linguistic device through which professions attempt social self-advancement. This article examines how professional discourses, in particular those which are foundational for library and information science theory and practice, establish themselves in culture and project history - past and future - by means of appropriating certain dominant tropes in culture's language. This article suggests that ethical and political choices arise out of the rhetoric and practice of professional discourse, and that these choices cannot be confined to the realm of professional polemics
    Type
    a
  2. Nagenborg, M.: Privatheit - Menschenrecht oder eine Frage des Anstandes? (2008) 0.00 
    0.001674345 = product of:
  0.00334869 = sum of:
    0.00334869 = product of:
      0.00669738 = sum of:
        0.00669738 = weight(_text_:a in 1698) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00669738 = score(doc=1698,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 1698, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1698)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Im ersten Teil des Beitrages wird eine kurze Zusammenfassung der Diskussion um den Schutz der Privatheit in Recht und Ethik gegeben. Der Schwerpunkt liegt dabei auf der Informationsethik. Im zweiten Teil werden einige für die Wissensorganisation relevante Beispiele für den Umgang mit personenbezogenen Daten diskutiert: u. a. Web Information Retrieval, Data Mining sowie FOAF als Beispiel für die Standardisierung von personenbezogenen Informationen.
    Type
    a
  3. Van der Walt, M.S.: Normative ethics in knowledge organisation (2008) 0.00 
    0.0014647468 = product of:
  0.0029294936 = sum of:
    0.0029294936 = product of:
      0.005858987 = sum of:
        0.005858987 = weight(_text_:a in 1696) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005858987 = score(doc=1696,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 1696, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1696)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The paper addresses the problem of whether the information profession needs ethical norms or guidelines specifically aimed at situations that may arise during knowledge organisation processes, and, if so, which specific norms should be included in codes of conduct. To explore this issue the following three specific questions are addressed: - Which forms of unethical conduct actually occur in knowledge organisation? - Which specific guidelines are required for promoting ethical practices in knowledge organisation? - To what extent does existing ethical codes make provision for knowledge organization practices? Four categories of unethical conduct in knowledge organisation are identified: - The use of terms with negative connotations - Misrepresentation of the subject - Censorship of "undesirable materials" - Bias in verbal indexing languages, classification schemes, evaluative comments in bibliographic records and subject analysis. Guidelines in codes of conduct should be aimed at encouraging information professionals to avoid these unethical practices. An examination of a number of existing ethical codes for the information profession shows that, although general ethical statements, that can be seen as applicable to knowledge organisation tasks, do occur in these codes, this is by no means a general trend. It is also clear that very few of the codes give explicit attention to knowledge organisation.
    Type
    a
  4. Weber, K.: Ethikcodizes für die Wissensorganisation (2008) 0.00 
    0.0014647468 = product of:
  0.0029294936 = sum of:
    0.0029294936 = product of:
      0.005858987 = sum of:
        0.005858987 = weight(_text_:a in 1699) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005858987 = score(doc=1699,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 1699, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1699)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    In the past, many professions and scientific disciplines decided to create a code of ethics which shall guide the professional activities of their members. The rules in these codes of ethics, sometimes called ethical guidelines, shall provide guidance in situations of moral conflict. Obviously, as other professionals or scholars, persons who are involved in knowledge organization face moral conflicts, too. Therefore, ISKO decided to discuss whether it would be necessary to create ethical guidelines for ISKO. In the paper two options to formulate a code of ethics are discussed: First, it is possible to identify moral values without formulating the way they can be achieved - this option is realised in the ethical guidelines of the German Gesellschaft für Informatik (GI). Second, it is feasible to clearly define morally acceptable professional actions without formulation basic moral values - this option is realised in the ACM and IEEE-CS Software Engineering Code of Ethics and Professional Practice. It is argued that if ISKO should decide to implement an own code of ethics it will be inevitable to choose the second option while it also will be necessary to address the specific needs of knowledge organization and its moral problems, for instance, the conflict of copyright and open access. Additionally, the second option has to be completed by basic moral values that shall underlie the professional actions of knowledge organization.
    Type
    a
  5. Rubin, R.; Froehlich, T.J.: Ethical aspects of library and information science (2009) 0.00 
    0.0014351527 = product of:
  0.0028703054 = sum of:
    0.0028703054 = product of:
      0.005740611 = sum of:
        0.005740611 = weight(_text_:a in 3778) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005740611 = score(doc=3778,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 3778, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3778)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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.
    Type
    a
  6. Chaves Guimarães, J.A. et al: ¬Los valores éticos en organización y representación del conocimiento (ORC) (2007) 0.00 
    0.001353075 = product of:
  0.00270615 = sum of:
    0.00270615 = product of:
      0.0054123 = sum of:
        0.0054123 = weight(_text_:a in 1100) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0054123 = score(doc=1100,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 1100, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1100)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Type
    a
  7. Frohmann, B.: Subjectivity and information ethics (2008) 0.00 
    0.001353075 = product of:
  0.00270615 = sum of:
    0.00270615 = product of:
      0.0054123 = sum of:
        0.0054123 = weight(_text_:a in 1360) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0054123 = score(doc=1360,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 1360, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1360)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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.]
    Type
    a
  8. Brody, R.: ¬The problem of information naïveté (2008) 0.00 
    0.001353075 = product of:
  0.00270615 = sum of:
    0.00270615 = product of:
      0.0054123 = sum of:
        0.0054123 = weight(_text_:a in 1865) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0054123 = score(doc=1865,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 1865, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1865)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Type
    a
  9. Hodson, S.S.: Ethical and legal aspects of archival services (2009) 0.00 
    0.001353075 = product of:
  0.00270615 = sum of:
    0.00270615 = product of:
      0.0054123 = sum of:
        0.0054123 = weight(_text_:a in 3774) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0054123 = score(doc=3774,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 3774, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3774)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Type
    a
  10. Himma, K.E.: ¬The justification of intellectual property : contemporary philosophical disputes (2008) 0.00 
    0.0011839407 = product of:
  0.0023678814 = sum of:
    0.0023678814 = product of:
      0.0047357627 = sum of:
        0.0047357627 = weight(_text_:a in 1862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0047357627 = score(doc=1862,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 1862, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1862)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Type
    a
  11. Zwass, V.: Ethical issues in information systems (2009) 0.00 
    0.0011839407 = product of:
  0.0023678814 = sum of:
    0.0023678814 = product of:
      0.0047357627 = sum of:
        0.0047357627 = weight(_text_:a in 3779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0047357627 = score(doc=3779,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 3779, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3779)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Type
    a
  12. Schuchart, F.: Neue Buckower Thesen : Im Mittelpunkt der Mensch? Die Technik? Oder der Konzern? (2001) 0.00 
    0.0010148063 = product of:
  0.0020296127 = sum of:
    0.0020296127 = product of:
      0.0040592253 = sum of:
        0.0040592253 = weight(_text_:a in 6376) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0040592253 = score(doc=6376,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 6376, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6376)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Type
    a
  13. Guha, A.-A.: ¬Der Widerspruch im Menschen (2001) 0.00 
    8.78848E-4 = product of:
  0.001757696 = sum of:
    0.001757696 = product of:
      0.003515392 = sum of:
        0.003515392 = weight(_text_:a in 6853) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.003515392 = score(doc=6853,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.06619633 = fieldWeight in 6853, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=6853)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Type
    a
  14. Kuhlen, R.: Informationsethik (2004) 0.00 
    8.371725E-4 = product of:
  0.001674345 = sum of:
    0.001674345 = product of:
      0.00334869 = sum of:
        0.00334869 = weight(_text_:a in 2905) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00334869 = score(doc=2905,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.06305726 = fieldWeight in 2905, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2905)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Informationsethik ist Ethik von und für Menschen, deren Verhalten und Werte sich allerdings immer mehr in der Infosphere, in den Informationsumgebungen, entwickeln. Diese wiederum werden immer mehr von dem geprägt, was Telemediatisierung aller, auch und gerade der intellektuellen Lebenswelten genannt werden kann, also die Durchdringung dieser Lebenswelten mit Informations-, Kommunikations-, und Multi-/Hypermedia-Technologien. Daher kann in einem ersten Zugriff Informationsethik bestimmt werden als ein offenes Ensemble von Aussagen über normatives Verhalten gegenüber Wissen und Information, das sich in fortschreitend telemediatisierten Lebenswelten und in der Auseinandersetzung mit den in bisherigen Lebenswelten gültigen Werten und normativen Verhalten entwickelt. Die Abhängigkeit von dem Telemediatisierungsprozess könnte dazu verleiten, Informationsethik mit Computerethik oder Netzethik gleichzusetzen. Nicht alles, was am Thema Computer ethisch relevant sein könnte, sollte die Informationsethik für sich reklamieren - so wie die Informationswissenschaft ja auch einen spezifischeren Begriff von Information hat als die Informatik (vgl. Kap. A 1). Informationsethik ist Ethik in elektronischen Räumen. Das klingt spektakulär, ist aber doch keine Cyberethik, keine Ethik von epers(ons) (electronic personas), durch die in der virtuellen Realität z.B. Rechte und Pflichten von intelligenten Informationsassistenten (Cyborgs, Bots, Agenten) geregelt werden könnten. Solche Rechte von epers, wie z.B. "epers' rights include those of privacy, autonomy and anonymity" wurden und werden durchaus formuliert, so in einer ACM-Konferenz zum Thema Ethics in the Computer Age von 1995. Referenziert werden konnte diese Cyber-/Eper-Ethik auf die drei Asimovschen Gesetze für Roboter, die sich aber letztlich, anders als die Cyborgs and anders als die den Menschen ablösenden Maschinen von Hans Moravec, noch nicht von ihren Schöp fern, den Menschen, emanzipieren durften, sondern, im Sinne der ersten beiden Asimovschen Roboter-Gesetze, sich an den Interessen der Menschen auszurichten hatten. Erst dann, wenn diesen Interessen Genüge geleistet ist, dürften die Roboter auch an sich denken und Rechte und Freiheiten für sich reklamieren. Für Martha M. Smith in ihrem Information-Ethics-Artikel aus dem 32. Band der Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (ARIST) ist Informationsethik "concerned with the ethical conflicts and issues that arise in the use of information, information technologies, and information systems", und zwar will sie dabei vor allem professionelle Aspekte angesprochen sehen, nicht Fragen persönlicher Ethik. Letztere können wir hier im Jahr 2004 nicht mehr so deutlich ausgrenzen, zumal die Bereiche professioneller Fachinformation und informationeller Alltagswelten auf den Publikumsmärkten durch die Telemediatisierung, durch die Ubiquität des Internet ineinander übergehen. Der Universalisierung der Informationsethik haben auch die drei UNESCO-INFOethics-Konferenzen (1997, 1990 und 2000) Rechnung getragen, bei denen das Ethos der Informationsspezialisten nur am Rande eine Rolle spielte. Vielmehr spiegelten die INFOethics-Themen die ethischen (und - im Sinne einer auf Aristoteles bezogenen Trias - zugleich die politischen und ökonomischen) Herausforderungen der (globalen) Informationsgesellschaft wider - die UNESCO bevorzugt eher den Plural und Wissensgesellschaften
    Type
    a

Authors

Languages

  • e 23
  • d 11
  • es 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 33
  • m 1
  • s 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications