Search (36 results, page 1 of 2)

0.035169784 = product of:
  0.052754674 = sum of:
    0.04476315 = weight(_text_:development in 2451) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04476315 = score(doc=2451,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.16011542 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04384008 = queryNorm
        0.27956802 = fieldWeight in 2451, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2451)
    0.0079915235 = product of:
      0.02397457 = sum of:
        0.02397457 = weight(_text_:29 in 2451) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02397457 = score(doc=2451,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1542157 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04384008 = queryNorm
            0.15546128 = fieldWeight in 2451, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2451)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Content

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

Date

1. 1.1999 18:59:29

0.028196286 = product of:
  0.042294428 = sum of:
    0.03230502 = weight(_text_:development in 2363) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03230502 = score(doc=2363,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16011542 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04384008 = queryNorm
        0.20176083 = fieldWeight in 2363, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2363)
    0.009989405 = product of:
      0.029968213 = sum of:
        0.029968213 = weight(_text_:29 in 2363) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029968213 = score(doc=2363,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1542157 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04384008 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 2363, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2363)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The international literature on information science has devoted attention to ethical studies in information, especially due to the development of information technologies. However, the information organization activities have incipient ethical studies that are mostly focused on libraries. Thus, the area of archival science still lacks studies of this nature, which leads to question how the codes of ethics for archivists address issues related to ethical dilemmas of information organization activities, especially in core activities of arrangement and document description. Thus, this study aims to identify and analyze ethical values related to those aforementioned activities, by analyzing the codes of the following countries: Brazil, Portugal, France, Spain, Australia, Canada, USA, New Zealand, United Kingdom and Switzerland and the ICA codes of ethics. Applying a content analysis, the following values were found: access and use, authenticity, confidentiality, conservation, custody, impartiality, information access, information security, physical preservation of the record, reliability, respect for provenance, respect for the original order, respect for the preservation of the archival value of the record.

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.

0.021536682 = product of:
  0.06461004 = sum of:
    0.06461004 = weight(_text_:development in 7243) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06461004 = score(doc=7243,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16011542 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04384008 = queryNorm
        0.40352166 = fieldWeight in 7243, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=7243)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Describes the development of a draft statement on computer ethics developed by the library staff of Southern Methodist University to guide and direct library personnel in appropriate and acceptable use of personal computers connected to the campus networks and mainframe

0.018274479 = product of:
  0.054823436 = sum of:
    0.054823436 = weight(_text_:development in 2448) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.054823436 = score(doc=2448,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16011542 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04384008 = queryNorm
        0.34239948 = fieldWeight in 2448, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2448)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The development of digital information and communication technologies will change the nature of political debate and the role of professional societies. Develops some of these issues, especially pornography, in consideration of policing the Internet. Addresses the following 4 aspects of pornography: children and access; accidentally finding; morphing; and the meaning of words. Distinguishes 5 different contexts where different professional judgements have to be made: the workplace; the university; the school; public spaces; and the home. Points to the new ethical professional considerations which arise from the development of technology. Suggests that there is a special role for professional societies in working out policies for policing the virtual society that is the Internet

0.017229345 = product of:
  0.05168803 = sum of:
    0.05168803 = weight(_text_:development in 8156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05168803 = score(doc=8156,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16011542 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04384008 = queryNorm
        0.32281733 = fieldWeight in 8156, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=8156)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The issue of whether or not a librarian should attempt to answer all requests for information, regardless of the use to which the information may be put, is a vexed one. This paper discusses the issue in the context of expert systems in reference work, and suggests that the need for the reference librarian to use discretion has implications for expert system development. It examines the role of the reference librarian, discusses the cases for and against answering all requests for information, outlines the behaviour of expert systems in reference, and discusses possible problems and solutions

0.015075676 = product of:
  0.04522703 = sum of:
    0.04522703 = weight(_text_:development in 3779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04522703 = score(doc=3779,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16011542 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04384008 = queryNorm
        0.28246516 = fieldWeight in 3779, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3779)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Information technology and information systems built around its artifacts can have powerful effects on individuals, both in their private life and in the workplace. As professionals and users, we should use ethical principles and codes of ethics to avoid and prevent deleterious effects of technology. Infoethics is the application of ethical theories to the development and use of information systems. The principal infoethical issues are privacy, accuracy, property (in particular, the intangible intellectual property), and access. Ethical decisions in the information-related domains are made by identifying the issues involved and applying ethical theories-classified as consequentalist and deontological-in the decision-making process.

0.015075676 = product of:
  0.04522703 = sum of:
    0.04522703 = weight(_text_:development in 1065) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04522703 = score(doc=1065,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16011542 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04384008 = queryNorm
        0.28246516 = fieldWeight in 1065, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1065)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

0.015075676 = product of:
  0.04522703 = sum of:
    0.04522703 = weight(_text_:development in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04522703 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16011542 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04384008 = queryNorm
        0.28246516 = fieldWeight in 1149, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1149)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.012922008 = product of:
  0.038766023 = sum of:
    0.038766023 = weight(_text_:development in 3778) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038766023 = score(doc=3778,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16011542 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04384008 = queryNorm
        0.242113 = fieldWeight in 3778, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3778)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

0.012922008 = product of:
  0.038766023 = sum of:
    0.038766023 = weight(_text_:development in 424) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038766023 = score(doc=424,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16011542 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04384008 = queryNorm
        0.242113 = fieldWeight in 424, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=424)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

0.010768341 = product of:
  0.03230502 = sum of:
    0.03230502 = weight(_text_:development in 1869) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03230502 = score(doc=1869,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16011542 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04384008 = queryNorm
        0.20176083 = fieldWeight in 1869, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1869)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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)]

0.010768341 = product of:
  0.03230502 = sum of:
    0.03230502 = weight(_text_:development in 418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03230502 = score(doc=418,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16011542 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04384008 = queryNorm
        0.20176083 = fieldWeight in 418, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=418)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The purpose of this essay is to demonstrate that the mechanisms of power around classifications of gender and sexuality are not always top-down or bottom-up. Instead, the weight of social discipline among members of sexual subcultures themselves helps to create these classifications, often reflecting the nomenclature of subjects and desires within sexual subcultures in a complex relationship to a dominant culture. Critically examining contemporary folksonomic classifications of representations of queer desire within Xtube, a database of online pornography, this paper reveals that social discipline occurs in the stabilization of nomenclature through socialization and through members' overt intervention into each others' selfunderstanding. The Xtube evidence reveals a complex social and cultural structure among members of sexual subcultures by drawing our attention to the particularity of various modes of sexual being and the relationship between those modes and particular configurations of sexual identity. In the process, this paper allows us to reassess, first, a presupposition of folksonomies as free of discipline allowing for their emancipatory potential and, second, the prevailing binary understandings of authority in the development of sexual nomenclatures and classifications as either top-down or bottom-up.

0.010768341 = product of:
  0.03230502 = sum of:
    0.03230502 = weight(_text_:development in 3367) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03230502 = score(doc=3367,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16011542 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04384008 = queryNorm
        0.20176083 = fieldWeight in 3367, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3367)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

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

0.010768341 = product of:
  0.03230502 = sum of:
    0.03230502 = weight(_text_:development in 4149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03230502 = score(doc=4149,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16011542 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04384008 = queryNorm
        0.20176083 = fieldWeight in 4149, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4149)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The goal of this research is to analyze ethical questions related to the organization of legislative information (bills, laws, and speeches) within the scope of the Brazilian Federal legislature (Chamber of Deputies and Federal Senate). Field research including interviews was used to collect data in order to investigate the development of knowledge representation tools, such as thesauri and taxonomies , and subject indexing for organization of legislative information (bills, legislation, and speeches). The heads of all sectors responsible for the chosen activities were interviewed in person, and the answers were compared to common ethical problems described in knowledge organization (KO) literature. The results, in part, show a lack of clarity on ethical issues in the treatment of legislative information, pointing to ethical dilemmas and identifying problems such as informational directness, misrepresentation, and ambiguity, among others. The indexers in the Brazilian Congress found ambiguity the ethical aspect faced most often in their jobs. The next most frequent issue was professional inefficiency and in third place was a tie between informational directness and lack of cultural warrant. The research also describes solutions used for various ethical dilemmas. It was found that some indexing terms used to describe bills in the Brazilian Chamber of Deputies have been subject to censorship and censored, or censurable, indexing terms have to be hidden in metadata so documents can be retrieved by users. It concludes that a greater ethical awareness of technical aspects is needed for Brazilian Federal legislative information professionals.

0.010768341 = product of:
  0.03230502 = sum of:
    0.03230502 = weight(_text_:development in 5728) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03230502 = score(doc=5728,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16011542 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04384008 = queryNorm
        0.20176083 = fieldWeight in 5728, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5728)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The paper traces the development of the discussion around ethical issues in artificial intelligence, and considers the way in which humans have affected the knowledge bases used in machine learning. The phenomenon of bias or discrimination in machine ethics is seen as inherited from humans, either through the use of biased data or through the semantics inherent in intellectually- built tools sourced by intelligent agents. The kind of biases observed in AI are compared with those identified in the field of knowledge organization, using religious adherents as an example of a community potentially marginalized by bias. A practical demonstration is given of apparent religious prejudice inherited from source material in a large database deployed widely in computational linguistics and automatic indexing. Methods to address the problem of bias are discussed, including the modelling of the moral process on neuroscientific understanding of brain function. The question is posed whether it is possible to model religious belief in a similar way, so that robots of the future may have both an ethical and a religious sense and themselves address the problem of prejudice.

0.009323443 = product of:
  0.027970329 = sum of:
    0.027970329 = product of:
      0.08391099 = sum of:
        0.08391099 = weight(_text_:29 in 614) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08391099 = score(doc=614,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1542157 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04384008 = queryNorm
            0.5441145 = fieldWeight in 614, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=614)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

29. 1.1997 18:49:05

0.008614672 = product of:
  0.025844015 = sum of:
    0.025844015 = weight(_text_:development in 1360) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025844015 = score(doc=1360,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16011542 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04384008 = queryNorm
        0.16140866 = fieldWeight in 1360, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1360)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.]

0.0066596037 = product of:
  0.01997881 = sum of:
    0.01997881 = product of:
      0.059936427 = sum of:
        0.059936427 = weight(_text_:29 in 2931) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.059936427 = score(doc=2931,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1542157 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04384008 = queryNorm
            0.38865322 = fieldWeight in 2931, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2931)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

29. 1.1997 18:49:05

0.0053276825 = product of:
  0.015983047 = sum of:
    0.015983047 = product of:
      0.04794914 = sum of:
        0.04794914 = weight(_text_:29 in 3706) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04794914 = score(doc=3706,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1542157 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04384008 = queryNorm
            0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 3706, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3706)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

29. 3.1996 18:33:41

0.0053276825 = product of:
  0.015983047 = sum of:
    0.015983047 = product of:
      0.04794914 = sum of:
        0.04794914 = weight(_text_:29 in 3687) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04794914 = score(doc=3687,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1542157 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04384008 = queryNorm
            0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 3687, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3687)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

27. 7.2005 12:29:44