Search (29 results, page 2 of 2)

7.48963E-4 = product of:
  0.0104854815 = sum of:
    0.0104854815 = weight(_text_:information in 4462) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0104854815 = score(doc=4462,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 4462, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4462)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

New technologies have made the increased globalization of information resources and services possible. In this situation, it is ethically and intellectually beneficial to protect cultural and information diversity. This paper analyzes the problems of creating ethically based globally accessible and culturally acceptable knowledge representation and organization systems, and foundation principles for the ethical treatment of different cultures are established on the basis of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). The concept of "cultural hospitality", which can act as a theoretical framework for the ethical warrant of knowledge representation and organization systems, is described. This broad discussion is grounded with an extended example of one cultural universal, the concept of time and its expression in calendars. Methods of achieving cultural and user hospitality in information systems are discussed for their potential for creating ethically based systems. It is concluded that cultural hospitality is a promising concept for assessing the ethical foundations of new knowledge representation and organization systems and for planning revisions to existing systems.

7.2068995E-4 = product of:
  0.010089659 = sum of:
    0.010089659 = weight(_text_:information in 2513) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010089659 = score(doc=2513,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 2513, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2513)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

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.

7.134467E-4 = product of:
  0.009988253 = sum of:
    0.009988253 = weight(_text_:information in 2905) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009988253 = score(doc=2905,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 2905, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2905)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

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

Source

Grundlagen der praktischen Information und Dokumentation. 5., völlig neu gefaßte Ausgabe. 2 Bde. Hrsg. von R. Kuhlen, Th. Seeger u. D. Strauch. Begründet von Klaus Laisiepen, Ernst Lutterbeck, Karl-Heinrich Meyer-Uhlenried. Bd.1: Handbuch zur Einführung in die Informationswissenschaft und -praxis

7.134467E-4 = product of:
  0.009988253 = sum of:
    0.009988253 = weight(_text_:information in 1862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009988253 = score(doc=1862,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 1862, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1862)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Footnote

Beitrag innerhalb eines Themenschwerpunkts: Perspectives on global information ethics

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.7, S.1143-1161

6.6915166E-4 = product of:
  0.009368123 = sum of:
    0.009368123 = product of:
      0.028104367 = sum of:
        0.028104367 = weight(_text_:22 in 1697) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028104367 = score(doc=1697,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.103770934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1697, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1697)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Date

17. 3.2008 15:17:22

6.241359E-4 = product of:
  0.008737902 = sum of:
    0.008737902 = weight(_text_:information in 1696) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008737902 = score(doc=1696,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 1696, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1696)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

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.

6.115257E-4 = product of:
  0.00856136 = sum of:
    0.00856136 = weight(_text_:information in 1328) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00856136 = score(doc=1328,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 1328, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1328)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Source

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

5.7655195E-4 = product of:
  0.008071727 = sum of:
    0.008071727 = weight(_text_:information in 3774) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008071727 = score(doc=3774,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 3774, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3774)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Source

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

5.0960475E-4 = product of:
  0.0071344664 = sum of:
    0.0071344664 = weight(_text_:information in 2765) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0071344664 = score(doc=2765,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 2765, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2765)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Studies an ethical aspects of our profession rarely focus an matters related with the organization and representation of knowledge, but are directed instead toward such subjects as intellectual property, right to privacy, intellectual freedom, or proper professional conduct. Nonetheless, the technological possibilities nowadays have meant a radical change. In the past, a certain policy for indexing or a classification system produced effects only in the relatively limited setting of a library or information center; but now the indexing or classification of certain electronic information resources has effects that go far beyond the physical boundaries of such institutions, or even those of a country. The objective of the present study is, an the one hand, to identify the principal ethical values related with the organization and representation of knowledge, and an the other hand, to see to what degree they are addressed by the ethical codes of professional associations.