Search (31 results, page 2 of 2)

0.0033478998 = product of:
  0.010043699 = sum of:
    0.010043699 = product of:
      0.020087399 = sum of:
        0.020087399 = weight(_text_:of in 1328) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020087399 = score(doc=1328,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 1328, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1328)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The politicization of science is not a new phenomenon, but the disputes surrounding global climate change have been particularly subject to ideological positioning. The work conducted by researchers on the description of, and possible causes for, climate change is reflected in the formal record of scientific discourse. The political and ideological claims about climate change are themselves reflected in the governmental and popular records. With regard to the particular work by Michael Mann and his colleagues, the three records (scientific, governmental, and popular) collide. Close examination of the totality of the record demonstrates the background, nature, and bases of claims made on all sides. The examination further demonstrates that the governmental and popular records are informed not by scientific research and communication but by ideological stances.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.14, S.2366-2371

0.003271467 = product of:
  0.009814401 = sum of:
    0.009814401 = product of:
      0.019628802 = sum of:
        0.019628802 = weight(_text_:of in 2771) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019628802 = score(doc=2771,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.28651062 = fieldWeight in 2771, product of:
              4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                22.0 = termFreq=22.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2771)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The social construction of the digital memory, let us call it "exomemory", has traditionally been a task related to aseptical procedures and tools but, in fact, it is an activity crossed by complexity and mediation. The positivist model claims for objectivity as the frame and goal in and for which electronic and extemal memory workers and thinkers have to fight and strive. The theoretical concept of multiculturalism is a dangerous slogan and not sufficiently critical as to tackle the rights of diversity and singularity even within a given (but not real) "monocultural society". Exomemory mediators as librarians, archivists, documentalists or virtual curators are not capable of addressing their tasks from a holistic approach compatible with every culture without determining their products and services of symbolic value from an hegemonic position, should it be at local, national or global level. So, these professionals and scholars have to practice reflexivity and include other metatheoretical concepts in their ordinary actions so that users may know who is behind the analysis, "whose are the tracks". To achieve this aim, the field of research called "Knowledge organization" must be opened to a new paradigm in which Critical Theory and Hermeneutics go together. Several theoretical and metaphorical terms commonly used are reviewed and forced to their paradoxical limits. The essay stands for a "culture of the border" as the best imaginary place to depict and accept those contradictions denied by dogmatic and hermetic intelligence.

Source

Challenges in knowledge representation and organization for the 21st century: Integration of knowledge across boundaries. Proceedings of the 7th ISKO International Conference Granada, Spain, July 10-13, 2002. Ed.: M. López-Huertas

0.0030878722 = product of:
  0.009263616 = sum of:
    0.009263616 = product of:
      0.018527232 = sum of:
        0.018527232 = weight(_text_:of in 3779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018527232 = score(doc=3779,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.2704316 = fieldWeight in 3779, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3779)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Information technology and information systems built around its artifacts can have powerful effects on individuals, both in their private life and in the workplace. As professionals and users, we should use ethical principles and codes of ethics to avoid and prevent deleterious effects of technology. Infoethics is the application of ethical theories to the development and use of information systems. The principal infoethical issues are privacy, accuracy, property (in particular, the intangible intellectual property), and access. Ethical decisions in the information-related domains are made by identifying the issues involved and applying ethical theories-classified as consequentalist and deontological-in the decision-making process.

Source

Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed.: M.J. Bates

0.0030562007 = product of:
  0.009168602 = sum of:
    0.009168602 = product of:
      0.018337203 = sum of:
        0.018337203 = weight(_text_:of in 5876) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018337203 = score(doc=5876,freq=30.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.26765788 = fieldWeight in 5876, product of:
              5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
                30.0 = termFreq=30.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5876)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

0.0030562007 = product of:
  0.009168602 = sum of:
    0.009168602 = product of:
      0.018337203 = sum of:
        0.018337203 = weight(_text_:of in 1360) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018337203 = score(doc=1360,freq=30.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.26765788 = fieldWeight in 1360, product of:
              5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
                30.0 = termFreq=30.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1360)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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

0.0028993662 = product of:
  0.008698098 = sum of:
    0.008698098 = product of:
      0.017396197 = sum of:
        0.017396197 = weight(_text_:of in 3778) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017396197 = score(doc=3778,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.25392252 = fieldWeight in 3778, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3778)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

Source

Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed.: M.J. Bates

0.0027618767 = product of:
  0.00828563 = sum of:
    0.00828563 = product of:
      0.01657126 = sum of:
        0.01657126 = weight(_text_:of in 1698) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01657126 = score(doc=1698,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.24188137 = fieldWeight in 1698, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1698)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Kompatibilität, Medien und Ethik in der Wissensorganisation - Compatibility, Media and Ethics in Knowledge Organization: Proceedings der 10. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation Wien, 3.-5. Juli 2006 - Proceedings of the 10th Conference of the German Section of the International Society of Knowledge Organization Vienna, 3-5 July 2006. Ed.: H.P. Ohly, S. Netscher u. K. Mitgutsch

0.0022319334 = product of:
  0.0066958 = sum of:
    0.0066958 = product of:
      0.0133916 = sum of:
        0.0133916 = weight(_text_:of in 1100) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0133916 = score(doc=1100,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.19546966 = fieldWeight in 1100, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1100)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Footnote

Originaltitel: Ethical values in the organization and representation of knowledge

Source

¬La interdisciplinariedad y la transdisciplinariedad en la organización del conocimiento científico : actas del VIII Congreso ISKO-España, León, 18, 19 y 20 de Abril de 2007 : Interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in the organization of scientific knowledge. Ed.: B. Rodriguez Bravo u. M.L Alvite Diez

0.001972769 = product of:
  0.0059183068 = sum of:
    0.0059183068 = product of:
      0.0118366135 = sum of:
        0.0118366135 = weight(_text_:of in 669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0118366135 = score(doc=669,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.17277241 = fieldWeight in 669, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=669)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.7, S.1111-1123

0.0015782153 = product of:
  0.0047346456 = sum of:
    0.0047346456 = product of:
      0.009469291 = sum of:
        0.009469291 = weight(_text_:of in 3687) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009469291 = score(doc=3687,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.13821793 = fieldWeight in 3687, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3687)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Bibliothekswissenschaft - quo vadis? Eine Disziplin zwischen Traditionen und Visionen: Programme - Modelle - Forschungsaufgaben / Library Science - quo vadis? A Discipline between Challenges and Opportunities: Programs - Models - Research Assignments. Mit einem Geleitwort von / With a Preface by Guy St. Clair Consulting Specialist for Knowledge Management and Learning, New York, NY und einem Vorwort von / and a Foreword by Georg Ruppelt Sprecher von / Speaker of BID - Bibliothek & Information Deutschland Bundesvereinigung Deutscher Bibliotheksund Informationsverbände e.V. Hrsg. von P. Hauke

0.0011959276 = product of:
  0.0035877828 = sum of:
    0.0035877828 = product of:
      0.0071755657 = sum of:
        0.0071755657 = weight(_text_:of in 2905) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0071755657 = score(doc=2905,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.10473771 = fieldWeight in 2905, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2905)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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