Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

0.005186281 = product of:
  0.020745125 = sum of:
    0.020745125 = weight(_text_:information in 5876) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020745125 = score(doc=5876,freq=38.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.0025760243 = product of:
  0.010304097 = sum of:
    0.010304097 = weight(_text_:information in 1696) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010304097 = score(doc=1696,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.