Search (17 results, page 1 of 1)

0.04654435 = product of:
  0.0930887 = sum of:
    0.0930887 = sum of:
      0.049993843 = weight(_text_:i in 2453) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049993843 = score(doc=2453,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045439374 = queryNorm
          0.29170483 = fieldWeight in 2453, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2453)
      0.043094855 = weight(_text_:22 in 2453) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043094855 = score(doc=2453,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045439374 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2453, 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=2453)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

6. 4.1996 13:22:31

Language

i

0.021867752 = product of:
  0.043735504 = sum of:
    0.043735504 = product of:
      0.08747101 = sum of:
        0.08747101 = weight(_text_:i in 3367) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08747101 = score(doc=3367,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.51037717 = fieldWeight in 3367, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3367)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The study of philosophy provides many general benefits to members of any field or discipline, the easiest of which to defend are an appreciation of, and experience with, critical thinking, including the ability to apply principles thoughtfully and logically in a variety of contexts; it is the discipline that, according to Plato, Socrates believed made life worth living. Today, however, most disciplines can lay claim to critical thinking - information science certainly involves a great deal of logical analysis - but only philosophy, in the Western world, can lay claim to having developed logic and critical thinking and thereby may have furthered the process more than any other discipline. Historically, philosophy is also the discipline in which one learns how to think about the most complex and important questions including questions about what is right and proper; that is, philosophy arguably lays claim to the development of ethics. Before going further, I should note that I am neither a philosopher nor an information scientist. I am a social psychologist and statistician whose interests have brought me into the realm of practical ethics primarily through ethical issues relevant to empirical research. I should also note that I am firmly in the camp of those who consider there to be an important distinction between morals and ethics; as do others, I argue that moral judgements essentially involve questions about whether or not rules, defined broadly, are followed, whereas ethical judgements essentially involve questions about whether or not a particular rule is worthwhile and, when there are incompatible rules, which rule should be granted higher priority.

0.019810565 = product of:
  0.03962113 = sum of:
    0.03962113 = sum of:
      0.017854942 = weight(_text_:i in 2392) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.017854942 = score(doc=2392,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045439374 = queryNorm
          0.10418029 = fieldWeight in 2392, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2392)
      0.02176619 = weight(_text_:22 in 2392) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02176619 = score(doc=2392,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045439374 = queryNorm
          0.13679022 = fieldWeight in 2392, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2392)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Classification

323.44/5 22 (GBV;LoC)

DDC

323.44/5 22 (GBV;LoC)

Footnote

Rez. in: JASIST 58(2007) no.2, S.302 (L.A. Ennis):"This is an important and timely anthology of articles "on the normative issues surrounding information control" (p. 11). Using an interdisciplinary approach, Moore's work takes a broad look at the relatively new field of information ethics. Covering a variety of disciplines including applied ethics, intellectual property, privacy, free speech, and more, the book provides information professionals of all kinds with a valuable and thought-provoking resource. Information Ethics is divided into five parts and twenty chapters or articles. At the end of each of the five parts, the editor has included a few "discussion cases," which allows the users to apply what they just read to potential real life examples. Part I, "An Ethical Framework for Analysis," provides readers with an introduction to reasoning and ethics. This complex and philosophical section of the book contains five articles and four discussion cases. All five of the articles are really thought provoking and challenging writings on morality. For instance, in the first article, "Introduction to Moral Reasoning," Tom Regan examines how not to answer a moral question. For example, he thinks using what the majority believes as a means of determining what is and is not moral is flawed. "The Metaphysics of Morals" by Immanuel Kant looks at the reasons behind actions. According to Kant, to be moral one has to do the right thing for the right reasons. By including materials that force the reader to think more broadly and deeply about what is right and wrong, Moore has provided an important foundation and backdrop for the rest of the book. Part II, "Intellectual Property: Moral and Legal Concerns," contains five articles and three discussion cases for tackling issues like ownership, patents, copyright, and biopiracy. This section takes a probing look at intellectual and intangible property from a variety of viewpoints. For instance, in "Intellectual Property is Still Property," Judge Frank Easterbrook argues that intellectual property is no different than physical property and should not be treated any differently by law. Tom Palmer's article, "Are Patents and Copyrights Morally Justified," however, uses historical examples to show how intellectual and physical properties differ.

0.017854942 = product of:
  0.035709884 = sum of:
    0.035709884 = product of:
      0.07141977 = sum of:
        0.07141977 = weight(_text_:i in 946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07141977 = score(doc=946,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.41672117 = fieldWeight in 946, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=946)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In this paper, I critically examine ethical issues introduced by predictive analytics. I argue firms can have a market incentive to construct deceptively inflated true-positive outcomes: individuals are over-categorized as requiring a penalizing treatment and the treatment leads to mistakenly thinking this label was correct. I show that differences in power between firms developing and using predictive analytics compared to subjects can lead to firms reaping the benefits of predatory predictions while subjects can bear the brunt of the costs. While profitable, the use of predatory predictions can deceive stakeholders by inflating the measurement of accuracy, diminish the individuality of subjects, and exert arbitrary power. I then argue that firms have a responsibility to distinguish between the treatment effect and predictive power of the predictive analytics program, better internalize the costs of categorizing someone as needing a penalizing treatment, and justify the predictions of subjects and general use of predictive analytics. Subjecting individuals to predatory predictions only for a firms' efficiency and benefit is unethical and an arbitrary exertion of power. Firms developing and deploying a predictive analytics program can benefit from constructing predatory predictions while the cost is borne by the less powerful subjects of the program.

0.0123128155 = product of:
  0.024625631 = sum of:
    0.024625631 = product of:
      0.049251262 = sum of:
        0.049251262 = weight(_text_:22 in 3027) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049251262 = score(doc=3027,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3027, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3027)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 2.1999 15:57:43

0.0123128155 = product of:
  0.024625631 = sum of:
    0.024625631 = product of:
      0.049251262 = sum of:
        0.049251262 = weight(_text_:22 in 2833) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049251262 = score(doc=2833,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2833, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2833)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.106-110

0.0123128155 = product of:
  0.024625631 = sum of:
    0.024625631 = product of:
      0.049251262 = sum of:
        0.049251262 = weight(_text_:22 in 6063) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049251262 = score(doc=6063,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 6063, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6063)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

13.10.2006 10:22:03

0.0123128155 = product of:
  0.024625631 = sum of:
    0.024625631 = product of:
      0.049251262 = sum of:
        0.049251262 = weight(_text_:22 in 248) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049251262 = score(doc=248,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 248, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=248)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 2.1999 15:50:50

0.0123128155 = product of:
  0.024625631 = sum of:
    0.024625631 = product of:
      0.049251262 = sum of:
        0.049251262 = weight(_text_:22 in 5599) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049251262 = score(doc=5599,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5599, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5599)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

25.12.2019 14:19:22

0.010773714 = product of:
  0.021547427 = sum of:
    0.021547427 = product of:
      0.043094855 = sum of:
        0.043094855 = weight(_text_:22 in 1697) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043094855 = score(doc=1697,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

17. 3.2008 15:17:22

0.010100282 = product of:
  0.020200564 = sum of:
    0.020200564 = product of:
      0.040401127 = sum of:
        0.040401127 = weight(_text_:i in 1360) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040401127 = score(doc=1360,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.2357331 = fieldWeight in 1360, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, 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.]

0.00769551 = product of:
  0.01539102 = sum of:
    0.01539102 = product of:
      0.03078204 = sum of:
        0.03078204 = weight(_text_:22 in 1868) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03078204 = score(doc=1868,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1868, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1868)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

1. 6.2008 12:22:41

0.00769551 = product of:
  0.01539102 = sum of:
    0.01539102 = product of:
      0.03078204 = sum of:
        0.03078204 = weight(_text_:22 in 420) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03078204 = score(doc=420,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 420, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=420)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

27. 9.2012 14:22:00

0.0071419775 = product of:
  0.014283955 = sum of:
    0.014283955 = product of:
      0.02856791 = sum of:
        0.02856791 = weight(_text_:i in 2451) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02856791 = score(doc=2451,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.16668847 = fieldWeight in 2451, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2451)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Enthält die Beiträge: COOLEY, M.: Visions and problems of the post-industrial society; GILL, K.S.: Knowledge and the post-industrial society; LYTJE, I.: Media and the cultural condition: language and education; WHISTON, T.: Knowledge and sustainable development: towards the furtherance of a global communication system; SHIPLEY, P.: The keyboard blues: modern technology and the rights and risks of people at work; LEAL, F.: Ethics is fragile, goodness is not; HIROSE, L.M.: Organisational spaces and intelligent machines: a metaphorical approach to ethics; THORPE, J.: Information system design: human centres approaches; BESSELAAR, P. van den u. T. MOM: Technological change, social innovation and employment; JONES, M.: Empowerment and enslavement: business process reeingineering and the transformation of work; LEVY, P.: The role of creativity in post-industrial society: exploring the implications of non-conventional technologies for work and management organisation; JANSEN, A.: The global information society and rural economics; DAY, P.: Information communication technology and society: a community-based approach; CYSNE, F.P.: Technology transfer and development; COOPER, J.: Information, knowledge and empowerment: the role of information in rural development; CLAY, J.: Participative citizenry in the information ages: the role of science and technology towards democratic education in a multicultural society; TAYLOR, J.: New media and cultural representation; BLACK, M.T.: Consensus and authenticity in representations: simulation as participative theatre; GORAYSKA, B. u. J.L. MEY: Cognitive technology; BOYNE, C.W.: Electronic mail, IT productivity and workplace culture; Squires, P.: Deadly technology in the post-industrial society: a case study of firearms and firearms control; COLE, M. u. D. HILL: Resitance postmodernism: emancipatory politics for a new era or academic chic for a defeatist intelligentsia?; McFEE, G.: Postmodernism, dance and post-industrial society; MULLER, R.C.: Creativity constellation for innovation and cooperation

0.0071419775 = product of:
  0.014283955 = sum of:
    0.014283955 = product of:
      0.02856791 = sum of:
        0.02856791 = weight(_text_:i in 5876) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02856791 = score(doc=5876,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.16668847 = fieldWeight in 5876, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5876)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.005386857 = product of:
  0.010773714 = sum of:
    0.010773714 = product of:
      0.021547427 = sum of:
        0.021547427 = weight(_text_:22 in 459) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021547427 = score(doc=459,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 459, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=459)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Im Rahmen des 3. Leipziger Kongresses für Information und Bibliothek 19.-22. März 2007 hat Bibliothek & Information Deutschland (BID) die im folgenden wiedergegebenen "Ethischen Grundsätze der Bibliotheks- und Informationsberufe" verabschiedet und der Presse und Fachöffentlichkeit vorgestellt. Damit folgt Deutschland den rund 40 Ländern weltweit, die bereits einen "Code of Ethics" veröffentlicht haben. Diese ethischen Richtlinien sind auf der IFLA/FAIFE-Website gesammelt unter www.ifla.org/faife/ethics/codes.htm.

0.004617306 = product of:
  0.009234612 = sum of:
    0.009234612 = product of:
      0.018469224 = sum of:
        0.018469224 = weight(_text_:22 in 462) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018469224 = score(doc=462,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 462, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=462)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Im Rahmen des 3. Leipziger Kongresses für Information und Bibliothek 19.-22. März 2007 hat Bibliothek & Information Deutschland (BID) die im folgenden wiedergegebenen "Ethischen Grundsätze der Bibliotheks- und Informationsberufe" verabschiedet und der Presse und Fachöffentlichkeit vorgestellt. Damit folgt Deutschland den rund 40 Ländern weltweit, die bereits einen "Code of Ethics" veröffentlicht haben. Diese ethischen Richtlinien sind auf der IFLA/FAIFE-Website gesammelt unter www.ifla.org/faife/ethics/codes.htm.