Search (16 results, page 1 of 1)

0.05485584 = product of:
  0.10971168 = sum of:
    0.035240363 = weight(_text_:social in 2392) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035240363 = score(doc=2392,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.19077215 = fieldWeight in 2392, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2392)
    0.07447132 = sum of:
      0.052280862 = weight(_text_:aspects in 2392) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.052280862 = score(doc=2392,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046325076 = queryNorm
          0.2496898 = fieldWeight in 2392, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
            0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2392)
      0.022190453 = weight(_text_:22 in 2392) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.022190453 = score(doc=2392,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046325076 = 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(2/4)

Classification

323.44/5 22 (GBV;LoC)

DDC

323.44/5 22 (GBV;LoC)

Footnote

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.

LCSH

Communication / Moral and ethical aspects
Information technology / Social aspects

Subject

Communication / Moral and ethical aspects
Information technology / Social aspects

0.05021262 = product of:
  0.10042524 = sum of:
    0.06905673 = weight(_text_:social in 3778) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06905673 = score(doc=3778,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.3738355 = fieldWeight in 3778, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3778)
    0.031368516 = product of:
      0.06273703 = sum of:
        0.06273703 = weight(_text_:aspects in 3778) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06273703 = score(doc=3778,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.29962775 = fieldWeight in 3778, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3778)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

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.

0.02114422 = product of:
  0.08457688 = sum of:
    0.08457688 = weight(_text_:social in 1870) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08457688 = score(doc=1870,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.45785317 = fieldWeight in 1870, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, 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.

0.020141546 = product of:
  0.08056618 = sum of:
    0.08056618 = weight(_text_:social in 4589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08056618 = score(doc=4589,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.43614143 = fieldWeight in 4589, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4589)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This article argues that professional discourses tend to align themselves with dominant ideological and social forces by means of language. Tn twentieth century modernity, the use of the trope of 'science' and related terms in professional theory is a common linguistic device through which professions attempt social self-advancement. This article examines how professional discourses, in particular those which are foundational for library and information science theory and practice, establish themselves in culture and project history - past and future - by means of appropriating certain dominant tropes in culture's language. This article suggests that ethical and political choices arise out of the rhetoric and practice of professional discourse, and that these choices cannot be confined to the realm of professional polemics

0.014787261 = product of:
  0.059149045 = sum of:
    0.059149045 = product of:
      0.11829809 = sum of:
        0.11829809 = weight(_text_:aspects in 3774) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11829809 = score(doc=3774,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.56498355 = fieldWeight in 3774, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3774)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  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.

0.014096146 = product of:
  0.056384586 = sum of:
    0.056384586 = weight(_text_:social in 5876) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056384586 = score(doc=5876,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.30523545 = fieldWeight in 5876, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, 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.

0.010173016 = product of:
  0.040692065 = sum of:
    0.040692065 = weight(_text_:social in 2771) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040692065 = score(doc=2771,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.22028469 = fieldWeight in 2771, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, 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.

0.009242038 = product of:
  0.036968153 = sum of:
    0.036968153 = product of:
      0.073936306 = sum of:
        0.073936306 = weight(_text_:aspects in 2765) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.073936306 = score(doc=2765,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.35311472 = fieldWeight in 2765, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2765)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.008138414 = product of:
  0.032553654 = sum of:
    0.032553654 = weight(_text_:social in 1360) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032553654 = score(doc=1360,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.17622775 = fieldWeight in 1360, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, 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.]

0.0065351077 = product of:
  0.026140431 = sum of:
    0.026140431 = product of:
      0.052280862 = sum of:
        0.052280862 = weight(_text_:aspects in 2513) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052280862 = score(doc=2513,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.2496898 = fieldWeight in 2513, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2513)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.006276408 = product of:
  0.025105633 = sum of:
    0.025105633 = product of:
      0.050211266 = sum of:
        0.050211266 = weight(_text_:22 in 2833) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050211266 = score(doc=2833,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = 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

0.006276408 = product of:
  0.025105633 = sum of:
    0.025105633 = product of:
      0.050211266 = sum of:
        0.050211266 = weight(_text_:22 in 6063) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050211266 = score(doc=6063,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = 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

0.005491857 = product of:
  0.021967428 = sum of:
    0.021967428 = product of:
      0.043934856 = sum of:
        0.043934856 = weight(_text_:22 in 1697) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043934856 = score(doc=1697,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

17. 3.2008 15:17:22

0.0039227554 = product of:
  0.015691021 = sum of:
    0.015691021 = product of:
      0.031382043 = sum of:
        0.031382043 = weight(_text_:22 in 1868) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031382043 = score(doc=1868,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

1. 6.2008 12:22:41

0.0027459285 = product of:
  0.010983714 = sum of:
    0.010983714 = product of:
      0.021967428 = sum of:
        0.021967428 = weight(_text_:22 in 459) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021967428 = score(doc=459,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.002353653 = product of:
  0.009414612 = sum of:
    0.009414612 = product of:
      0.018829225 = sum of:
        0.018829225 = weight(_text_:22 in 462) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018829225 = score(doc=462,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.