Search (140 results, page 6 of 7)

0.002212209 = product of:
  0.0066366266 = sum of:
    0.0066366266 = weight(_text_:a in 7334) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0066366266 = score(doc=7334,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 7334, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=7334)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Type

a

0.002212209 = product of:
  0.0066366266 = sum of:
    0.0066366266 = weight(_text_:a in 669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0066366266 = score(doc=669,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 669, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=669)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Type

a

0.002212209 = product of:
  0.0066366266 = sum of:
    0.0066366266 = weight(_text_:a in 843) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0066366266 = score(doc=843,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 843, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=843)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Type

a

0.002212209 = product of:
  0.0066366266 = sum of:
    0.0066366266 = weight(_text_:a in 3663) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0066366266 = score(doc=3663,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 3663, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3663)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Type

a

0.002212209 = product of:
  0.0066366266 = sum of:
    0.0066366266 = weight(_text_:a in 1042) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0066366266 = score(doc=1042,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 1042, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1042)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Type

a

0.002212209 = product of:
  0.0066366266 = sum of:
    0.0066366266 = weight(_text_:a in 2931) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0066366266 = score(doc=2931,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 2931, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2931)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Type

a

0.002212209 = product of:
  0.0066366266 = sum of:
    0.0066366266 = weight(_text_:a in 1869) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0066366266 = score(doc=1869,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 1869, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1869)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The first part of this article deals with some initiatives concerning the role of information ethics for Africa, such as the New Partnership for Africa's Development, United Nations Information Communications Technology (ICT), and the African Information Society Initiative particularly since the World Summit on the Information Society. Information Ethics from Africa is a young academic field, and not much has been published so far on the impact of ICT on African societies and cultures from a philosophical perspective. The second part of the article analyzes some recent research on this matter particularly with regard to the concept of ubuntu. Finally, the article addresses some issues of the African Conference on Information Ethics held February 3-5, 2007, in Pretoria, South Africa.[The following essay is adapted from a keynote address delivered at the Africa Information Ethics Conference in Pretoria, South Africa, February 5-7, 2007. Under the patronage of UNESCO, sponsored by the South African government, and organized with assistance from the Department of Information Science at the University of Pretoria, the School of Information Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, and the supporters and members of the International Center for Information Ethics (ICIE), the theme of the conference was Ethical Challenges in the Information Age: The Joy of Sharing Knowledge. The full version of the address as well as selected articles from the conference were published in Vol. 7 of ICIE's online journal, International Review of Information Ethics (for more information, visit http://icie.zkm.de)]

Type

a

0.002212209 = product of:
  0.0066366266 = sum of:
    0.0066366266 = weight(_text_:a in 2513) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0066366266 = score(doc=2513,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 2513, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2513)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

Type

a

0.002212209 = product of:
  0.0066366266 = sum of:
    0.0066366266 = weight(_text_:a in 4149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0066366266 = score(doc=4149,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 4149, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4149)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The goal of this research is to analyze ethical questions related to the organization of legislative information (bills, laws, and speeches) within the scope of the Brazilian Federal legislature (Chamber of Deputies and Federal Senate). Field research including interviews was used to collect data in order to investigate the development of knowledge representation tools, such as thesauri and taxonomies , and subject indexing for organization of legislative information (bills, legislation, and speeches). The heads of all sectors responsible for the chosen activities were interviewed in person, and the answers were compared to common ethical problems described in knowledge organization (KO) literature. The results, in part, show a lack of clarity on ethical issues in the treatment of legislative information, pointing to ethical dilemmas and identifying problems such as informational directness, misrepresentation, and ambiguity, among others. The indexers in the Brazilian Congress found ambiguity the ethical aspect faced most often in their jobs. The next most frequent issue was professional inefficiency and in third place was a tie between informational directness and lack of cultural warrant. The research also describes solutions used for various ethical dilemmas. It was found that some indexing terms used to describe bills in the Brazilian Chamber of Deputies have been subject to censorship and censored, or censurable, indexing terms have to be hidden in metadata so documents can be retrieved by users. It concludes that a greater ethical awareness of technical aspects is needed for Brazilian Federal legislative information professionals.

Type

a

0.0021899752 = product of:
  0.0065699257 = sum of:
    0.0065699257 = weight(_text_:a in 2459) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0065699257 = score(doc=2459,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 2459, 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=2459)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The American Association of Law Librarians Code of Ethics requires librarians to avoid the unauthorized practice of law while providing access to legal information. Provides guidelines and suggestions to help librarians distinguish legal advice from legal information in the context of working with the public. Defining the activities that constitute Unauthorized practice of law is difficult and an ever evolving grey area. Reference service should be confined to assisting patrons in locating legal information and instructing patrons in the use of legal materials using examples unrelated to the patron's issue and advising patrons with legal problems to consult a lawyer

Type

a

0.0021899752 = product of:
  0.0065699257 = sum of:
    0.0065699257 = weight(_text_:a in 4589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0065699257 = score(doc=4589,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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

0.0021899752 = product of:
  0.0065699257 = sum of:
    0.0065699257 = weight(_text_:a in 1698) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0065699257 = score(doc=1698,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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

0.0021675134 = product of:
  0.00650254 = sum of:
    0.00650254 = weight(_text_:a in 5878) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00650254 = score(doc=5878,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.12482099 = fieldWeight in 5878, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5878)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

As discussions about the roles played by information in economic, political, and social arenas continue to evolve, the need for an intellectual primer on information ethics that also functions as a solid working casebook for LIS students and professionals has never been more urgent. This text, written by a stellar group of ethics scholars and contributors from around the globe, expertly fills that need. Organized into twelve chapters, making it ideal for use by instructors, this volume from editors Burgess and Knox thoroughly covers principles and concepts in information ethics, as well as the history of ethics in the information professions; examines human rights, information access, privacy, discourse, intellectual property, censorship, data and cybersecurity ethics, intercultural Information ethics, and global digital citizenship and responsibility; synthesizes the philosophical underpinnings of these key subjects with abundant primary source material to provide historical context along with timely and relevant case studies; features contributions from John M. Budd, Paul T. Jaeger, Rachel Fischer, Margaret Zimmerman, Kathrine A. Henderson, Peter Darch, Michael Zimmer, and Masooda Bashir, among others; and offers a special concluding chapter by Amelia Gibson that explores emerging issues in information ethics, including discussions ranging from the ethics of social media and social movements to AI decision making. This important survey will be a key text for LIS students and an essential reference work for practitioners.

Footnote

Rez. in: JASISI 71(2020) no.6, S.725-726 (Elizabeth A. Buchanan).

0.0019158293 = product of:
  0.005747488 = sum of:
    0.005747488 = weight(_text_:a in 1696) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005747488 = score(doc=1696,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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

0.0019158293 = product of:
  0.005747488 = sum of:
    0.005747488 = weight(_text_:a in 1699) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005747488 = score(doc=1699,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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

0.0019158293 = product of:
  0.005747488 = sum of:
    0.005747488 = weight(_text_:a in 417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005747488 = score(doc=417,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 417, 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=417)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Studies on ethics in information organization have deeply contributed to the recognition of the social dimension of Information Science. The subject approach to information is linked to an ethical dimension because one of its major concerns is related to its reliability and usefulness in a specific discursive community or knowledge domain. In this direction, we propose, through an exploratory research design with qualitative and inductive characteristics, to identify the specific terminology that Brazilian indexing languages allow for terms relating to male homosexuality. We also analyzed the terms assigned to papers published in the Journal of Homosexuality, Sexualities and Journal of Gay & Lesbian Mental Health between the years 2005 to 2009. From this analysis of terms and the Brazilian indexing languages, we see (1) the Brazilian context, (2) imprecision in the terminology, (3) indications of prejudices disseminated by political correctness, (4) biased representation of the subject matter, (5) and the presence of figures of speech.

Content

Beitrag aus einem Themenheft zu den Proceedings of the 2nd Milwaukee Conference on Ethics in Information Organization, June 15-16, 2012, School of Information Studies, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Hope A. Olson, Conference Chair. Vgl.: http://www.ergon-verlag.de/isko_ko/downloads/ko_39_2012_5_h.pdf.

Type

a

0.0019158293 = product of:
  0.005747488 = sum of:
    0.005747488 = weight(_text_:a in 2363) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005747488 = score(doc=2363,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 2363, 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=2363)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The international literature on information science has devoted attention to ethical studies in information, especially due to the development of information technologies. However, the information organization activities have incipient ethical studies that are mostly focused on libraries. Thus, the area of archival science still lacks studies of this nature, which leads to question how the codes of ethics for archivists address issues related to ethical dilemmas of information organization activities, especially in core activities of arrangement and document description. Thus, this study aims to identify and analyze ethical values related to those aforementioned activities, by analyzing the codes of the following countries: Brazil, Portugal, France, Spain, Australia, Canada, USA, New Zealand, United Kingdom and Switzerland and the ICA codes of ethics. Applying a content analysis, the following values were found: access and use, authenticity, confidentiality, conservation, custody, impartiality, information access, information security, physical preservation of the record, reliability, respect for provenance, respect for the original order, respect for the preservation of the archival value of the record.

Type

a

0.0019158293 = product of:
  0.005747488 = sum of:
    0.005747488 = weight(_text_:a in 671) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005747488 = score(doc=671,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 671, 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=671)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Algorithms influence every facet of modern life: criminal justice, education, housing, entertainment, elections, social media, news feeds, work... the list goes on. Delegating important decisions to machines, however, gives rise to deep moral concerns about responsibility, transparency, freedom, fairness, and democracy. Algorithms and Autonomy connects these concerns to the core human value of autonomy in the contexts of algorithmic teacher evaluation, risk assessment in criminal sentencing, predictive policing, background checks, news feeds, ride-sharing platforms, social media, and election interference. Using these case studies, the authors provide a better understanding of machine fairness and algorithmic transparency. They explain why interventions in algorithmic systems are necessary to ensure that algorithms are not used to control citizens' participation in politics and undercut democracy. This title is also available as Open Access on Cambridge Core

0.0019158293 = product of:
  0.005747488 = sum of:
    0.005747488 = weight(_text_:a in 1134) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005747488 = score(doc=1134,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 1134, 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=1134)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Personal data play a fundamental role in contemporary socioeconomic dynamics, with one of its primary aspects being the potential to facilitate discriminatory situations. This situation impacts the knowledge organization field especially because it considers personal data as elements (facets) to categorize persons under an economic and sometimes discriminatory perspective. The research corpus was collected at Scopus and Web of Science until the end of 2021, under the terms "data discrimination", "algorithmic bias", "algorithmic discrimination" and "fair algorithms". The obtained results allowed to infer that the analyzed knowledge domain predominantly incorporates personal data, whether in its behavioral dimension or in the scope of the so-called sensitive data. These data are susceptible to the action of algorithms of different orders, such as relevance, filtering, predictive, social ranking, content recommendation and random classification. Such algorithms can have discriminatory biases in their programming related to gender, sexual orientation, race, nationality, religion, age, social class, socioeconomic profile, physical appearance, and political positioning.

Type

a

0.0019158293 = product of:
  0.005747488 = sum of:
    0.005747488 = weight(_text_:a in 1136) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005747488 = score(doc=1136,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 1136, 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=1136)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The paper examines the integration of born-digital and digitized content into an outdated classification system within the Museum of European Cultures in Berlin. It underscores the predicament encountered by smaller to medium-sized cultural institutions as they navigate between adhering to established knowl­edge management systems and preserving an expanding array of contemporary cultural artifacts. The perspective of infrastructure studies is employed to scrutinize the representation of diverse viewpoints and voices within the museum's collections. The study delves into museum personnel's challenges in cataloging and classifying ethnographic objects utilizing a numerical-alphabetical categorization scheme from the 1930s. It presents an analysis of the limitations inherent in this method, along with its implications for the assimilation of emerging forms of born-digital and digitized objects. Through an exploration of the case of category 74, as observed at the Museum of European Cultures, the study illustrates the complexities of replacing pre-existing systems due to their intricate integration into the socio-technical components of the museum's information infrastructure. The paper reflects on how resource-constrained cultural institutions can take a proactive and ethical approach to knowl­edge management, re-evaluating their knowl­edge infrastructure to promote inclusion and ensure adaptability.

Type

a