Search (137 results, page 7 of 7)

0.0014724231 = product of:
  0.008834538 = sum of:
    0.008834538 = weight(_text_:in in 84) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008834538 = score(doc=84,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.14877784 = fieldWeight in 84, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=84)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Reports on 'Info-Ethics', the 1st International Congress on Ethical, Legal and Societal Aspects of Digital Information' held at Monte Carlo in MAr 1997. Some 200 delegates from many countries attended: topics covered included the Internet and its control, and the problems of access to it for developing countries with inadequate telecommunications infrastructure. 2 main themes of the conference were the problems of multilingual information provision, and preservation and conservation in the digital environment. Discussions on the nature of ethics and the ethics of cyberspace led to consideration of whether a 'right to communicate' should be added to the International Convention on Human Rights: there may also be pressure for Unesco to establish a Commission on information ethics

0.0014724231 = product of:
  0.008834538 = sum of:
    0.008834538 = weight(_text_:in in 2446) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008834538 = score(doc=2446,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.14877784 = fieldWeight in 2446, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2446)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

In addition to having a ethical obligation to treat colleagues with courtesy and respect, refernce librarians must be able to interact effectively with one another in order to provide an optimal level of service to their users. A well functioning reference unit builds on the individual strengths of each reference librarian and promotes an environment conductive to consultation and sharing. The tone for setting such an atmosphere is largely dependent upon the actions of the head of the unit who must set an example of fairness, cooperation, and striving for excellence while providing encouragement to update skills

0.0014724231 = product of:
  0.008834538 = sum of:
    0.008834538 = weight(_text_:in in 1065) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008834538 = score(doc=1065,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.14877784 = fieldWeight in 1065, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1065)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This paper explores the ethics of classification. The paper outlines recent conceptual moves in knowledge organization research and shows that contemporary classification theory is based on a pragmatic understanding of the world. It suggests that unjust statements and assumptions about the world challenge contemporary library classifications and that a proper response is needed. It outlines a framework for the development of ethical classifications based on MacIntyre's practice-based ethical theory. It provides a framework within which editors and managers of library classifications can make ethically sound decisions.

0.0014724231 = product of:
  0.008834538 = sum of:
    0.008834538 = weight(_text_:in in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008834538 = score(doc=1149,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.14877784 = fieldWeight in 1149, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1149)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The Cataloguing Code of Ethics, released in January 2021, was the product of a multi-national, multi-year endeavor by the Cataloging Ethics Steering Committee to create a useful framework for the discussion of cataloging ethics. The six Cataloging Ethics Steering Committee members, based in the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada, recount the efforts of the group and the cataloging community leading up to the release of the Code, as well as provide their thoughts on the challenges of creating the document, lessons learned, and the future of the Code.

0.0012881019 = product of:
  0.007728611 = sum of:
    0.007728611 = weight(_text_:in in 2369) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007728611 = score(doc=2369,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.1301535 = fieldWeight in 2369, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2369)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This paper arises from the possibility of a theoretical dialogue between the socio-cognitive perspectives of knowledge organization and the Bakhtinian concepts on conscience, "responsible act," "responsive understanding," and polyphony as attitudes that motivate the dialogism that is inherent to language. Those questions allow us to recognize the professional that organizes and represents knowledge as someone who has an intersubjective conscience, a product composed by two axes that are indeed deeply connected: the "self " and the "other." Therefore, the acts of representing and organizing knowledge are deeply affected by external discourses and by internal discourses. Those different discourses come together at the moment of representing the knowledge and act as a response to the dialogues between the external and the internal discourses. As a consequence, the indexing/ classification codes, terms or signs assume a dialogical and dynamic representativeness in order to correspond not only to the contents of the documents but also to dialogue with a diverse user community, by the recognition of the alterity/otherness of the social actors and the social situations. Finally, it is important to point out the need of an ethical and democratic attitude of the indexer/classifier, in order to represent the social pluralism and show an equipollence of social voices.

Content

Beitrag anlässlich: Proceedings of the 3rd Milwaukee Conference on Ethics in Knowledge Organization, May 28-29, 2015, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, USA. Vgl.: http://www.ergon-verlag.de/isko_ko/downloads/ko_42_2015_5.

0.0012881019 = product of:
  0.007728611 = sum of:
    0.007728611 = weight(_text_:in in 1136) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007728611 = score(doc=1136,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.1301535 = fieldWeight in 1136, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1136)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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.

0.0012620769 = product of:
  0.0075724614 = sum of:
    0.0075724614 = weight(_text_:in in 1328) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0075724614 = score(doc=1328,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.12752387 = fieldWeight in 1328, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1328)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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.

0.0012620769 = product of:
  0.0075724614 = sum of:
    0.0075724614 = weight(_text_:in in 424) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0075724614 = score(doc=424,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.12752387 = fieldWeight in 424, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=424)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Ethical standards are required at both the individual and system levels of the information organization enterprise, but are those standards the same? For example, are the ethical responsibilities of DDC's editorial board fundamentally the same as for an individual cataloger? And, what are the consequences of decisions made using different ethical frameworks to the users of knowledge organization systems? A selection of ethical theories suitable for evaluating moral dilemmas at all levels in information organization is presented, including utilitarianism, deontology, and pragmatism, as well as the more contemporary approaches of justice, feminist, and Derridean ethics. Finally, a selection of criteria is outlined, taken from the existing ethical frameworks, to use as a starting point for development of an ethical framework specifically for information organization.

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_j.pdf.

0.0012620769 = product of:
  0.0075724614 = sum of:
    0.0075724614 = weight(_text_:in in 899) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0075724614 = score(doc=899,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.12752387 = fieldWeight in 899, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=899)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The scale and complexity of the data and algorithms used in artificial intelligence (AI)-based systems present significant challenges for anticipating their ethical, legal, and policy implications. Given these challenges, who does the work of AI ethics, and how do they do it? This study reports findings from interviews with 26 stakeholders in AI research, law, and policy. The primary themes are that the work of AI ethics is structured by personal values and professional commitments, and that it involves situated meaning-making through data and algorithms. Given the stakes involved, it is not enough to simply satisfy that AI will not behave unethically; rather, the work of AI ethics needs to be incentivized.

0.0011898974 = product of:
  0.0071393843 = sum of:
    0.0071393843 = weight(_text_:in in 8571) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0071393843 = score(doc=8571,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 8571, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=8571)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

0.0011898974 = product of:
  0.0071393843 = sum of:
    0.0071393843 = weight(_text_:in in 1441) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0071393843 = score(doc=1441,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 1441, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1441)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Footnote

The views in this document are those of the compiling parties and do not engage the Commission of the EC. - EIIA = The European Information Industray Association / EUSIDIC = The European Association of Information Services / EIRENE = The European Information Researchers Network

0.0011898974 = product of:
  0.0071393843 = sum of:
    0.0071393843 = weight(_text_:in in 3706) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0071393843 = score(doc=3706,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 3706, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3706)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Offers a definition of ethics for librarians by recent concerns in the uSA about the Code of Ethics (1981) of the ALA and by examination of other codes of ethics, such as that produced by the Library Association, UK, and the writings of librarians and ethicists. Concludes with notes on the revision of the 1981 Code of Ethics, adopted by the ALA on 28 June 95, comparing the 2 codes and noting the differences where applicable

0.0011898974 = product of:
  0.0071393843 = sum of:
    0.0071393843 = weight(_text_:in in 482) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0071393843 = score(doc=482,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 482, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=482)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Reference archivists face challenging ethical dilemmas in the course of seemingly mundane daily tasks. While newly revised thical codes provide helpful guidelines, there are many ethical questions without clear answers. Rapidly evolving technology, changing expectations, and inconsistent privacy laws place pressures on reference work. These issues also open a window on the society whose cultural property archivists manage

0.0011898974 = product of:
  0.0071393843 = sum of:
    0.0071393843 = weight(_text_:in in 2443) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0071393843 = score(doc=2443,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 2443, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2443)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Reports the draft Institute of Information Scientists Guidelines, which are intended to provide a model of prefessional ethids for information professionals, the need for which had arisen because of changes in the information environment. Sets out: core values; definitions; standard of information provision; duties to information sources; duties to the public; duties to clients; and conflict of interest

0.0010517307 = product of:
  0.006310384 = sum of:
    0.006310384 = weight(_text_:in in 946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006310384 = score(doc=946,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.10626988 = fieldWeight in 946, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=946)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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.

0.0010411602 = product of:
  0.006246961 = sum of:
    0.006246961 = weight(_text_:in in 8599) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006246961 = score(doc=8599,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.10520181 = fieldWeight in 8599, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=8599)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Describes the foundations of online information ethics by combining the insights of cognitive psychologist, Ulrich Neisser, and information science professor, Rafael Capurro. Capurro contrasts rule based ethics, such as codes, and self based ethics. Rule based ethics are necessary, but self based ethics lead to life enhancing uses of information and information technology. Neisser describes the self by defining 5 aspects of self understanding. Challenges information professionals to create environments and interpersonal interactions which create success in information seeking and provide the users with life enhancing search narratives

8.9242304E-4 = product of:
  0.005354538 = sum of:
    0.005354538 = weight(_text_:in in 1870) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005354538 = score(doc=1870,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.09017298 = fieldWeight in 1870, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1870)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This article discusses social justice as a moral norm that can be used to address the ethical challenges facing us in the global Information Society. The global Information Society is seen as a continuation of relationships which have been altered by the use of modern information and communication technologies (ICTs). Four interrelated characteristics of the global Information Society also are identified. After a brief overview of the main socioethical issues facing the global Information Society, the article discusses the application of social justice as a moral tool that has universal moral validity and which can be used to address these ethical challenges. It is illustrated that the scope of justice is no longer limited to domestic issues. Three core principles of justice are furthermore distinguished, and based on these three principles, seven categories of justice are introduced. It is illustrated how these categories of justice can be applied to address the main ethical challenges of the Information Society.