Search (31 results, page 1 of 2)

0.035862308 = product of:
  0.071724616 = sum of:
    0.027465092 = weight(_text_:information in 1360) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027465092 = score(doc=1360,freq=32.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.3103276 = fieldWeight in 1360, product of:
          5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
            32.0 = termFreq=32.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1360)
    0.044259522 = weight(_text_:standards in 1360) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044259522 = score(doc=1360,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.19697142 = fieldWeight in 1360, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1360)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

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.]

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.2, S.267-277

0.030161653 = product of:
  0.060323305 = sum of:
    0.017839102 = weight(_text_:information in 4462) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017839102 = score(doc=4462,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 4462, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4462)
    0.042484205 = product of:
      0.08496841 = sum of:
        0.08496841 = weight(_text_:organization in 4462) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08496841 = score(doc=4462,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.47270393 = fieldWeight in 4462, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4462)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

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.

0.029477432 = product of:
  0.11790973 = sum of:
    0.11790973 = sum of:
      0.07009536 = weight(_text_:organization in 1697) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07009536 = score(doc=1697,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050415643 = queryNorm
          0.38996086 = fieldWeight in 1697, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1697)
      0.047814365 = weight(_text_:22 in 1697) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.047814365 = score(doc=1697,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050415643 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

17. 3.2008 15:17:22

Source

Kompatibilität, Medien und Ethik in der Wissensorganisation - Compatibility, Media and Ethics in Knowledge Organization: Proceedings der 10. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation Wien, 3.-5. Juli 2006 - Proceedings of the 10th Conference of the German Section of the International Society of Knowledge Organization Vienna, 3-5 July 2006. Ed.: H.P. Ohly, S. Netscher u. K. Mitgutsch

0.028374001 = product of:
  0.056748003 = sum of:
    0.017165681 = weight(_text_:information in 2513) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017165681 = score(doc=2513,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 2513, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2513)
    0.039582323 = product of:
      0.07916465 = sum of:
        0.07916465 = weight(_text_:organization in 2513) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07916465 = score(doc=2513,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.44041592 = fieldWeight in 2513, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2513)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

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.

Series

Advances in knowledge organization; vol.11

Source

Culture and identity in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the Tenth International ISKO Conference 5-8 August 2008, Montreal, Canada. Ed. by Clément Arsenault and Joseph T. Tennis

0.025860146 = product of:
  0.05172029 = sum of:
    0.01213797 = weight(_text_:information in 2765) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01213797 = score(doc=2765,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 2765, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2765)
    0.039582323 = product of:
      0.07916465 = sum of:
        0.07916465 = weight(_text_:organization in 2765) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07916465 = score(doc=2765,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.44041592 = fieldWeight in 2765, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2765)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

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

Series

Advances in knowledge organization; vol.8

Source

Challenges in knowledge representation and organization for the 21st century: Integration of knowledge across boundaries. Proceedings of the 7th ISKO International Conference Granada, Spain, July 10-13, 2002. Ed.: M. López-Huertas

0.023531828 = product of:
  0.047063656 = sum of:
    0.012015978 = weight(_text_:information in 1698) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012015978 = score(doc=1698,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 1698, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1698)
    0.03504768 = product of:
      0.07009536 = sum of:
        0.07009536 = weight(_text_:organization in 1698) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07009536 = score(doc=1698,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.38996086 = fieldWeight in 1698, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1698)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

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.

Source

Kompatibilität, Medien und Ethik in der Wissensorganisation - Compatibility, Media and Ethics in Knowledge Organization: Proceedings der 10. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation Wien, 3.-5. Juli 2006 - Proceedings of the 10th Conference of the German Section of the International Society of Knowledge Organization Vienna, 3-5 July 2006. Ed.: H.P. Ohly, S. Netscher u. K. Mitgutsch

0.023371622 = product of:
  0.046743244 = sum of:
    0.019420752 = weight(_text_:information in 6063) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019420752 = score(doc=6063,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 6063, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6063)
    0.027322493 = product of:
      0.054644987 = sum of:
        0.054644987 = weight(_text_:22 in 6063) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054644987 = score(doc=6063,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = 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(2/4)

Abstract

In diesem Beitrag werden verschiedene Aspekte einer Begründung einer Informationsethik betrachtet. Zunächst wird eine sinnvolle Abgrenzung zu konkurrierenden Ethiken - Netz- und Medienethik - gesucht. Aus Sicht der Generierung, Distribution und Bewahrung von Information wird die Informationsethik als umfassender und allgemeiner als die anderen angesehen. Weiterhin wird die Option einer diskursethischen und damit absoluten Begründung der Informationsethik diskutiert und zugunsten einer pragmatistischen Sichtweise zurückgewiesen.

Date

13.10.2006 10:22:03

Source

Information und Sprache: Beiträge zu Informationswissenschaft, Computerlinguistik, Bibliothekswesen und verwandten Fächern. Festschrift für Harald H. Zimmermann. Herausgegeben von Ilse Harms, Heinz-Dirk Luckhardt und Hans W. Giessen

0.022763126 = product of:
  0.04552625 = sum of:
    0.014865918 = weight(_text_:information in 1696) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014865918 = score(doc=1696,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 1696, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1696)
    0.030660335 = product of:
      0.06132067 = sum of:
        0.06132067 = weight(_text_:organization in 1696) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06132067 = score(doc=1696,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.34114468 = fieldWeight in 1696, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1696)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

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.

Source

Kompatibilität, Medien und Ethik in der Wissensorganisation - Compatibility, Media and Ethics in Knowledge Organization: Proceedings der 10. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation Wien, 3.-5. Juli 2006 - Proceedings of the 10th Conference of the German Section of the International Society of Knowledge Organization Vienna, 3-5 July 2006. Ed.: H.P. Ohly, S. Netscher u. K. Mitgutsch

0.022045394 = product of:
  0.04409079 = sum of:
    0.029929388 = weight(_text_:information in 5876) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029929388 = score(doc=5876,freq=38.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.33817163 = fieldWeight in 5876, product of:
          6.164414 = tf(freq=38.0), with freq of:
            38.0 = termFreq=38.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5876)
    0.014161401 = product of:
      0.028322803 = sum of:
        0.028322803 = weight(_text_:organization in 5876) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028322803 = score(doc=5876,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.15756798 = fieldWeight in 5876, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5876)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

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.

0.01610175 = product of:
  0.0322035 = sum of:
    0.020128548 = weight(_text_:information in 2392) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020128548 = score(doc=2392,freq=44.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.2274321 = fieldWeight in 2392, product of:
          6.6332498 = tf(freq=44.0), with freq of:
            44.0 = termFreq=44.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2392)
    0.01207495 = product of:
      0.0241499 = sum of:
        0.0241499 = weight(_text_:22 in 2392) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0241499 = score(doc=2392,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

BK

06.00 / Information und Dokumentation: Allgemeines

Classification

323.44/5 22 (GBV;LoC)
06.00 / Information und Dokumentation: Allgemeines

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.
Part III, "Privacy and Information Control," has four articles and three discussion cases beginning with an 1890 article from the Harvard Law Review, "The Right to Privacy," written by Samuel A Warren and Louis D. Brandeis. Moore then includes an article debating whether people own their genes, an article on caller I.D., and an article on computer surveillance. While all four articles pose some very interesting questions, Margaret Everett's article "The Social Life of Genes: Privacy, Property, and the New Genetics" is incredible. She does a great job of demonstrating how advances in genetics have led to increased concerns over ownership and privacy of genetic codes. For instance, if someone's genetic code predisposes them to a deadly disease, should insurance companies have access to that information? Part IV, "Freedom of Speech and Information Control," has three articles and two discussion cases that examine speech and photography issues. Moore begins this section with Kent Greenawalt's "Rationales for Freedom of Speech," which looks at a number of arguments favoring free speech. Then the notion of free speech is carried over into the digital world in "Digital Speech and Democratic Culture: A Theory of Freedom of Expression for the Information Society" by Jack M. Balkin. At 59 pages, this is the work's longest article and demonstrates how complex the digital environment has made freedom of speech issues. Finally, Part V, "Governmental and Societal Control of Information," contains three articles and three discussion cases which provide an excellent view into the conflict between security and privacy. For instance, the first article, "Carnivore, the FBI's E-mail Surveillance System: Devouring Criminals, Not Privacy" by Griffin S. Durham, examines the FBI's e-mail surveillance program called Carnivore. Durham does an excellent job of demonstrating that Carnivore is a necessary and legitimate system used in limited circumstances and with a court order. Librarians will find the final article in the book, National Security at What Price? A Look into Civil Liberty Concerns in the Information Age under the USA Patriot Act by Jacob R. Lilly, of particular interest. In this article, Lilly uses historical examples of events that sacrificed civil liberties for national security such as the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II and the McCarthyism of the Cold War era to examine the PATRIOT Act.
The book also includes an index, a selected bibliography, and endnotes for each article. More information on the authors of the articles would have been useful, however. One of the best features of Information Ethics is the discussion cases at the end of each chapter. For instance, in the discussion cases, Moore asks questions like: Would you allow one person to die to save nine? Should a scientist be allowed to experiment on people without their knowledge if there is no harm? Should marriages between people carrying a certain gene be outlawed? These discussion cases really add to the value of the readings. The only suggestion would be to have put them at the beginning of each section so the reader could have the questions floating in their heads as they read the material. Information Ethics is a well thought out and organized collection of articles. Moore has done an excellent job of finding articles to provide a fair and balanced look at a variety of complicated and far-reaching topics. Further, the work has breadth and depth. Moore is careful to include enough historical articles, like the 1890 Warren article, to give balance and perspective to new and modern topics like E-mail surveillance, biopiracy, and genetics. This provides a reader with just enough philosophy and history theory to work with the material. The articles are written by a variety of authors from differing fields so they range in length, tone, and style, creating a rich tapestry of ideas and arguments. However, this is not a quick or easy read. The subject matter is complex and one should plan to spend time with the book. The book is well worth the effort though. Overall, this is a highly recommended work for all libraries especially academic ones."

LCSH

Freedom of information
Information society
Information technology / Social aspects

Subject

Freedom of information
Information society
Information technology / Social aspects

0.014607265 = product of:
  0.02921453 = sum of:
    0.01213797 = weight(_text_:information in 1868) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01213797 = score(doc=1868,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 1868, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1868)
    0.01707656 = product of:
      0.03415312 = sum of:
        0.03415312 = weight(_text_:22 in 1868) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03415312 = score(doc=1868,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = 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(2/4)

Date

1. 6.2008 12:22:41

Footnote

Beitrag innerhalb eines Themenschwerpunkts: Perspectives on global information ethics

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.7, S.1134-1142

0.012693932 = product of:
  0.025387865 = sum of:
    0.013434272 = weight(_text_:information in 459) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013434272 = score(doc=459,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.1517936 = fieldWeight in 459, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=459)
    0.011953591 = product of:
      0.023907183 = sum of:
        0.023907183 = weight(_text_:22 in 459) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023907183 = score(doc=459,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = 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(2/4)

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.

Content

"Ethik und Information - Ethische Grundsätze der Bibliotheks- und Informationsberufe (Stand: 15.3.2007) Bibliothek und Information Deutschland (BID e.V.) ist die Dachorganisation der Bibliotheks- und Informationsverbände in Deutschland. Die in den Mitgliedsverbänden der BID organisierten Beschäftigten in den Bibliotheks- und Informationsberufen richten ihre professionellen Aktivitäten nach ethischen Grundsätzen aus, die Verhaltensstandards bewirken, die Bestandteil des beruflichen Selbstverständnisses werden sollen. Die Beschäftigten in den Bibliotheks- und Informationsberufen engagieren sich nicht beruflich in Organisationen, deren Tätigkeit oder Ziele diesen ethischen Grundsätzen entgegenstehen. Die BID und ihre Mitgliedsverbände und Mitgliedsorganisationen setzen sich im beruflichen Umfeld für das Arbeiten nach diesen ethischen Grundsätzen ein. Das geschieht unter anderem durch laufende Information, durch berufliche Aus- und Fortbildung, durch Kooperation mit verwandten Organisationen und durch die Reaktion in der Öffentlichkeit auf bekannt werdende Verstöße gegen diese Grundsätze. Die Mitglieder der BID machen diese ethischen Grundsätze der Bibliotheks- und Informationsberufe im Berufsstand und in der allgemeinen Öffentlichkeit bekannt.

0.010880513 = product of:
  0.021761026 = sum of:
    0.01151509 = weight(_text_:information in 462) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01151509 = score(doc=462,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.1301088 = fieldWeight in 462, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=462)
    0.010245935 = product of:
      0.02049187 = sum of:
        0.02049187 = weight(_text_:22 in 462) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02049187 = score(doc=462,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = 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(2/4)

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.

Content

"Ethik und Information - Ethische Grundsätze der Bibliotheks- und Informationsberufe (Stand: 15.3.2007) Bibliothek und Information Deutschland (BID e.V.) ist die Dachorganisation der Bibliotheks- und Informationsverbände in Deutschland. Die in den Mitgliedsverbänden der BID organisierten Beschäftigten in den Bibliotheks- und Informationsberufen richten ihre professionellen Aktivitäten nach ethischen Grundsätzen aus, die Verhaltensstandards bewirken, die Bestandteil des beruflichen Selbstverständnisses werden sollen. Die Beschäftigten in den Bibliotheks- und Informationsberufen engagieren sich nicht beruflich in Organisationen, deren Tätigkeit oder Ziele diesen ethischen Grundsätzen entgegenstehen. Die BID und ihre Mitgliedsverbände und Mitgliedsorganisationen setzen sich im beruflichen Umfeld für das Arbeiten nach diesen ethischen Grundsätzen ein. Das geschieht unter anderem durch laufende Information, durch berufliche Aus- und Fortbildung, durch Kooperation mit verwandten Organisationen und durch die Reaktion in der Öffentlichkeit auf bekannt werdende Verstöße gegen diese Grundsätze. Die Mitglieder der BID machen diese ethischen Grundsätze der Bibliotheks- und Informationsberufe im Berufsstand und in der allgemeinen Öffentlichkeit bekannt.

0.010856532 = product of:
  0.043426126 = sum of:
    0.043426126 = weight(_text_:information in 1865) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043426126 = score(doc=1865,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.490671 = fieldWeight in 1865, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1865)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

With the rapidly changing Web-enabled world, the already existing dichotomy between knowing of and knowing about, or information naïveté, widens daily. This article explores the ethical dilemmas that can result from the lack of information literacy. The article also discusses conditions and consequences of information naïveté, media bias, possessive memory, and limited contexts and abilities. To help avoid information failure, the author recommends producers, contributors, disseminators, and aggregators of information be less information naïve.

Footnote

Beitrag innerhalb eines Themenschwerpunkts: Perspectives on global information ethics

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.7, S.1124-1127

Theme

Information

0.010013623 = product of:
  0.040054493 = sum of:
    0.040054493 = product of:
      0.080108985 = sum of:
        0.080108985 = weight(_text_:organization in 1100) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.080108985 = score(doc=1100,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.44566956 = fieldWeight in 1100, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1100)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Footnote

Originaltitel: Ethical values in the organization and representation of knowledge

Source

¬La interdisciplinariedad y la transdisciplinariedad en la organización del conocimiento científico : actas del VIII Congreso ISKO-España, León, 18, 19 y 20 de Abril de 2007 : Interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in the organization of scientific knowledge. Ed.: B. Rodriguez Bravo u. M.L Alvite Diez

0.009895581 = product of:
  0.039582323 = sum of:
    0.039582323 = product of:
      0.07916465 = sum of:
        0.07916465 = weight(_text_:organization in 1699) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07916465 = score(doc=1699,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.44041592 = fieldWeight in 1699, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1699)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

Source

Kompatibilität, Medien und Ethik in der Wissensorganisation - Compatibility, Media and Ethics in Knowledge Organization: Proceedings der 10. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation Wien, 3.-5. Juli 2006 - Proceedings of the 10th Conference of the German Section of the International Society of Knowledge Organization Vienna, 3-5 July 2006. Ed.: H.P. Ohly, S. Netscher u. K. Mitgutsch

0.008850876 = product of:
  0.035403505 = sum of:
    0.035403505 = product of:
      0.07080701 = sum of:
        0.07080701 = weight(_text_:organization in 2771) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07080701 = score(doc=2771,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.39391994 = fieldWeight in 2771, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2771)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  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.

Series

Advances in knowledge organization; vol.8

Source

Challenges in knowledge representation and organization for the 21st century: Integration of knowledge across boundaries. Proceedings of the 7th ISKO International Conference Granada, Spain, July 10-13, 2002. Ed.: M. López-Huertas

0.008582841 = product of:
  0.034331363 = sum of:
    0.034331363 = weight(_text_:information in 1869) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034331363 = score(doc=1869,freq=32.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.38790947 = fieldWeight in 1869, product of:
          5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
            32.0 = termFreq=32.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1869)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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)]

Footnote

Beitrag innerhalb eines Themenschwerpunkts: Perspectives on global information ethics

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.7, S.1162-1170

0.008142399 = product of:
  0.032569595 = sum of:
    0.032569595 = weight(_text_:information in 1870) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032569595 = score(doc=1870,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.36800325 = fieldWeight in 1870, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1870)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

Footnote

Beitrag innerhalb eines Themenschwerpunkts: Perspectives on global information ethics

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.7, S.1171-1183

0.007432959 = product of:
  0.029731836 = sum of:
    0.029731836 = weight(_text_:information in 669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029731836 = score(doc=669,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.3359395 = fieldWeight in 669, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=669)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Footnote

Beitrag innerhalb eines Themenschwerpunkts: Perspectives on global information ethics

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.7, S.1111-1123