Search (33 results, page 1 of 2)

0.045698274 = product of:
  0.09139655 = sum of:
    0.069153175 = weight(_text_:services in 2453) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.069153175 = score(doc=2453,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.40155616 = fieldWeight in 2453, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2453)
    0.022243375 = product of:
      0.04448675 = sum of:
        0.04448675 = weight(_text_:22 in 2453) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04448675 = score(doc=2453,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1642603 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

An awareness exists among Italian librarians of the need for an established code of ethics for library reference services. Considers the principles that such a code should incorporate; the US Commitment to Information services, for example, affirms users' rights of access to library books and resources, regardless of content and opinions expressed. Censoship is opposed and people are not barred from library use for ethnis, social or religious reasons. An ethical code would require library staff to be impartial, give attention and respect to users, allocate time properly, and avoid prejudice. Discusses the problems of library ethics which arise when user requests relate to sensitive topics e.g. euthansia, cocaine refining

Date

6. 4.1996 13:22:31

0.024449343 = product of:
  0.09779737 = sum of:
    0.09779737 = weight(_text_:services in 7864) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09779737 = score(doc=7864,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.56788623 = fieldWeight in 7864, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=7864)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.020956578 = product of:
  0.08382631 = sum of:
    0.08382631 = weight(_text_:services in 930) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08382631 = score(doc=930,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.4867596 = fieldWeight in 930, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=930)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.019758051 = product of:
  0.079032205 = sum of:
    0.079032205 = weight(_text_:services in 1441) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.079032205 = score(doc=1441,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.45892134 = fieldWeight in 1441, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1441)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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

Source

Information services and use. 14(1994) no.2, S.115-121

0.019758051 = product of:
  0.079032205 = sum of:
    0.079032205 = weight(_text_:services in 482) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.079032205 = score(doc=482,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.45892134 = fieldWeight in 482, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=482)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Footnote

Contribution to an issue devoted to reference services for archives and manuscripts

0.019758051 = product of:
  0.079032205 = sum of:
    0.079032205 = weight(_text_:services in 3774) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.079032205 = score(doc=3774,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.45892134 = fieldWeight in 3774, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3774)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Archivists deal with legal and ethical issues every day in the course of administering collections of personal papers. This entry will discuss legal and ethical aspects of archival services in three areas: acquisitions, access, and terms of use, in the context of research libraries and manuscript repositories. It will not deal with government, corporate, or institutional archives.

0.018352494 = product of:
  0.073409975 = sum of:
    0.073409975 = sum of:
      0.04163372 = weight(_text_:management in 420) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04163372 = score(doc=420,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.15810528 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046906993 = queryNorm
          0.2633291 = fieldWeight in 420, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=420)
      0.03177625 = weight(_text_:22 in 420) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03177625 = score(doc=420,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1642603 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046906993 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The conflict between librarians' ethics and their responsibilities in the process of progressive collection management, which applies the principles of cost accounting to libraries, to call attention to the "bad books" in their collections that are compromised by age, error, abridgement, expurgation, plagiarism, copyright violation, libel, or fraud, is discussed. According to Charles Cutter, notes in catalog records should call attention to the best books but ignore the bad ones. Libraries that can afford to keep their "bad books," however, which often have a valuable second life, must call attention to their intellectual contexts in notes in the catalog records. Michael Bellesiles's Arming America, the most famous case of academic fraud at the turn of the twenty-first century, is used as a test case. Given the bias of content enhancement that automatically pulls content from the Web into library catalogs, catalog notes for "bad books" may be the only way for librarians to uphold their ethical principles regarding collection management while fulfilling their professional responsibilities to their users in calling attention to their "bad books."

Date

27. 9.2012 14:22:00

0.017463814 = product of:
  0.06985526 = sum of:
    0.06985526 = weight(_text_:services in 8700) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06985526 = score(doc=8700,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.405633 = fieldWeight in 8700, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=8700)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Computers in human services. 9(1993) nos.3/4, S.441-453

0.015303934 = product of:
  0.061215736 = sum of:
    0.061215736 = sum of:
      0.029439485 = weight(_text_:management in 1868) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.029439485 = score(doc=1868,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15810528 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046906993 = queryNorm
          0.18620178 = fieldWeight in 1868, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1868)
      0.03177625 = weight(_text_:22 in 1868) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03177625 = score(doc=1868,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1642603 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046906993 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This article introduces a normative principle for the behavior of contemporary computing and communication systems and considers some of its consequences. The principle, named the principle of distribution, says that in a distributed multi-agent system, control resides as much as possible with the individuals constituting the system rather than in centralized agents; and when that is unfeasible or becomes inappropriate due to environmental changes, control evolves upwards from the individuals to an appropriate intermediate level rather than being imposed from above. The setting for the work is the dynamically changing global space resulting from ubiquitous communication. Accordingly, the article begins by determining the characteristics of the distributed multi-agent space it spans. It then fleshes out the principle of distribution, with examples from daily life as well as from Computer Science. The case is made for the principle of distribution to work at various levels of abstraction of system behavior: to inform the high-level discussion that ought to precede the more low-level concerns of technology, protocols, and standardization, but also to facilitate those lower levels. Of the more substantial applications given here of the principle of distribution, a technical example concerns the design of secure ad hoc networks of mobile devices, achievable without any form of centralized authentication or identification but in a solely distributed manner. Here, the context is how the principle can be used to provide new and provably secure protocols for genuinely ubiquitous communication. A second, more managerial example concerns the distributed production and management of open-source software, and a third investigates some pertinent questions involving the dynamic restructuring of control in distributed systems, important in times of disaster or malevolence.

Date

1. 6.2008 12:22:41

0.012747671 = product of:
  0.050990686 = sum of:
    0.050990686 = product of:
      0.10198137 = sum of:
        0.10198137 = weight(_text_:management in 784) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10198137 = score(doc=784,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.15810528 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = queryNorm
            0.6450219 = fieldWeight in 784, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=784)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Footnote

Rez. in: Managing information 3(1996) no.3, S.48 (R. Nelsson): Information processing and management 32(1996) no.4, S.497-498 (T.J. Froehlich)

Theme

Information Resources Management

0.012224671 = product of:
  0.048898686 = sum of:
    0.048898686 = weight(_text_:services in 2446) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048898686 = score(doc=2446,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.28394312 = fieldWeight in 2446, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2446)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Footnote

Part of an issue devoted to the philosophical ideas underlying reference services

0.012224671 = product of:
  0.048898686 = sum of:
    0.048898686 = weight(_text_:services in 2449) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048898686 = score(doc=2449,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.28394312 = fieldWeight in 2449, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2449)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Technical services quarterly. 13(1996) nos.3/4, S.23-38

0.012224671 = product of:
  0.048898686 = sum of:
    0.048898686 = weight(_text_:services in 2459) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048898686 = score(doc=2459,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.28394312 = fieldWeight in 2459, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2459)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Legal reference services quarterly. 13(1994) no.4, S.31-45

0.010478289 = product of:
  0.041913155 = sum of:
    0.041913155 = weight(_text_:services in 4462) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041913155 = score(doc=4462,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.2433798 = fieldWeight in 4462, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4462)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.010478289 = product of:
  0.041913155 = sum of:
    0.041913155 = weight(_text_:services in 3778) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041913155 = score(doc=3778,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.2433798 = fieldWeight in 3778, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3778)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This entry discusses many of the ethical considerations in the library and information science professions: collection development, censorship, privacy, reference services, copyright, administrative concerns, information access, technology-related issues, and problems with conflicting loyalties. It surveys the factors that affect ethical deliberations in the information professions: social utility, survival, social responsibility, and respect for individuality. It also looks at professional factors in ethical deliberations, such as professional codes of ethics, and the values that support ethical principles of professional conduct: truth, tolerance, individual liberty, justice and beauty. In the final section, it indicates the kinds of actions to promote ethical conduct at the organizational, professional and individual levels. As a final caveat, it indicates that ethical decisions require deliberation and reflection. While one can articulate values, factors, codes, and actions, they inform ethical reflection that must often confront and negotiate dilemmas and tensions.

0.008731907 = product of:
  0.03492763 = sum of:
    0.03492763 = weight(_text_:services in 2771) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03492763 = score(doc=2771,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.2028165 = fieldWeight in 2771, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2771)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

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

0.006985526 = product of:
  0.027942104 = sum of:
    0.027942104 = weight(_text_:services in 1360) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027942104 = score(doc=1360,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17221296 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046906993 = queryNorm
        0.1622532 = fieldWeight in 1360, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1360)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.]

0.0063552503 = product of:
  0.025421001 = sum of:
    0.025421001 = product of:
      0.050842002 = sum of:
        0.050842002 = weight(_text_:22 in 3027) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050842002 = score(doc=3027,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1642603 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 2.1999 15:57:43

0.0063552503 = product of:
  0.025421001 = sum of:
    0.025421001 = product of:
      0.050842002 = sum of:
        0.050842002 = weight(_text_:22 in 2833) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050842002 = score(doc=2833,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1642603 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

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

0.0063552503 = product of:
  0.025421001 = sum of:
    0.025421001 = product of:
      0.050842002 = sum of:
        0.050842002 = weight(_text_:22 in 6063) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050842002 = score(doc=6063,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1642603 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046906993 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

13.10.2006 10:22:03