Search (113 results, page 6 of 6)

0.0023673228 = product of:
  0.0071019684 = sum of:
    0.0071019684 = product of:
      0.014203937 = sum of:
        0.014203937 = weight(_text_:of in 3026) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014203937 = score(doc=3026,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 3026, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3026)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Journal of information ethics. 17(2008) no.1, S.12-19

0.0022319334 = product of:
  0.0066958 = sum of:
    0.0066958 = product of:
      0.0133916 = sum of:
        0.0133916 = weight(_text_:of in 7278) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0133916 = score(doc=7278,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.19546966 = fieldWeight in 7278, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7278)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Tackels the main changes that have taken place in the mechanical world view of simple, self regulating and intelligent machines, and studies their repercussions at the ethical and organisational level. These views of machines agree with the scientific, human-relations and postmodern proposals in organisation theory, in that they are in fact reflections on human nature which depend on metaphorical devices within which the machine metaphor is central

0.0022319334 = product of:
  0.0066958 = sum of:
    0.0066958 = product of:
      0.0133916 = sum of:
        0.0133916 = weight(_text_:of in 2456) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0133916 = score(doc=2456,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.19546966 = fieldWeight in 2456, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2456)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The relevance of ethical considerations for AI is discussed in 2 respects: on the one hand with regard to the consequences one has to cope with when dealing with computer systems that are considered 'intelligent' and, on the other hand had with questions of responsibility which arises when such systems are used. In what sense has Artificial Intelligence to deal with ethics?

0.0022319334 = product of:
  0.0066958 = sum of:
    0.0066958 = product of:
      0.0133916 = sum of:
        0.0133916 = weight(_text_:of in 1100) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0133916 = score(doc=1100,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.19546966 = fieldWeight in 1100, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1100)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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

0.0022056228 = product of:
  0.006616868 = sum of:
    0.006616868 = product of:
      0.013233736 = sum of:
        0.013233736 = weight(_text_:of in 671) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013233736 = score(doc=671,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.19316542 = fieldWeight in 671, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=671)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Algorithms influence every facet of modern life: criminal justice, education, housing, entertainment, elections, social media, news feeds, work... the list goes on. Delegating important decisions to machines, however, gives rise to deep moral concerns about responsibility, transparency, freedom, fairness, and democracy. Algorithms and Autonomy connects these concerns to the core human value of autonomy in the contexts of algorithmic teacher evaluation, risk assessment in criminal sentencing, predictive policing, background checks, news feeds, ride-sharing platforms, social media, and election interference. Using these case studies, the authors provide a better understanding of machine fairness and algorithmic transparency. They explain why interventions in algorithmic systems are necessary to ensure that algorithms are not used to control citizens' participation in politics and undercut democracy. This title is also available as Open Access on Cambridge Core

0.0020877826 = product of:
  0.0062633473 = sum of:
    0.0062633473 = product of:
      0.012526695 = sum of:
        0.012526695 = weight(_text_:of in 5878) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012526695 = score(doc=5878,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.18284513 = fieldWeight in 5878, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5878)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

As discussions about the roles played by information in economic, political, and social arenas continue to evolve, the need for an intellectual primer on information ethics that also functions as a solid working casebook for LIS students and professionals has never been more urgent. This text, written by a stellar group of ethics scholars and contributors from around the globe, expertly fills that need. Organized into twelve chapters, making it ideal for use by instructors, this volume from editors Burgess and Knox thoroughly covers principles and concepts in information ethics, as well as the history of ethics in the information professions; examines human rights, information access, privacy, discourse, intellectual property, censorship, data and cybersecurity ethics, intercultural Information ethics, and global digital citizenship and responsibility; synthesizes the philosophical underpinnings of these key subjects with abundant primary source material to provide historical context along with timely and relevant case studies; features contributions from John M. Budd, Paul T. Jaeger, Rachel Fischer, Margaret Zimmerman, Kathrine A. Henderson, Peter Darch, Michael Zimmer, and Masooda Bashir, among others; and offers a special concluding chapter by Amelia Gibson that explores emerging issues in information ethics, including discussions ranging from the ethics of social media and social movements to AI decision making. This important survey will be a key text for LIS students and an essential reference work for practitioners.

Content

Inhalt: Principles and concepts in information ethics / John T.F. Burgess -- Human rights and information ethics / Paul T. Jaeger, Ursula Gorham, and Natalie Greene Taylor -- History of ethics in the information professions / John T.F. Burgess -- Information access / Emily J.M. Knox -- Privacy / Michael Zimmer -- Ethics of discourse / John M. Budd -- Intellectual property ethics / Kathrine Andrews Henderson -- Data ethics / Peter Darch -- Cybersecurity ethics / Jane Blanken-Webb, Imani Palmer, Roy H. Campbell, Nicholas C. Burbules, and Masooda Bashir -- Cognitive justice and intercultural communication ethics / Rachel Fischer and Erin Klazar -- Global digital citizenship / Margaret Zimmerman -- Emerging issues / Amelia Gibson.

0.001972769 = product of:
  0.0059183068 = sum of:
    0.0059183068 = product of:
      0.0118366135 = sum of:
        0.0118366135 = weight(_text_:of in 669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0118366135 = score(doc=669,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.17277241 = fieldWeight in 669, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=669)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

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

0.001972769 = product of:
  0.0059183068 = sum of:
    0.0059183068 = product of:
      0.0118366135 = sum of:
        0.0118366135 = weight(_text_:of in 784) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0118366135 = score(doc=784,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.17277241 = fieldWeight in 784, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=784)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.0019529418 = product of:
  0.005858825 = sum of:
    0.005858825 = product of:
      0.01171765 = sum of:
        0.01171765 = weight(_text_:of in 1580) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01171765 = score(doc=1580,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.17103596 = fieldWeight in 1580, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1580)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Taking the Oklahoma bombing as a base, the author argues that although social scientists differ about the effects of pornography, there are no parallel arguments that bomb manuals on the Internet give safe vent to potential bombers. While instructions for making bombs are available in books, the procedures involved in accessing such literature in libraries may deter would be bombers. In contrast, easy access through the Internet will encourage them. It is argued that materials that endanger lives should be banned from the Internet on the basis that every right, even free speech, needs to be balanced with others, especially the right to live

Source

Journal of information ethics. 6(1997) no.2, S.64-66

0.0019529418 = product of:
  0.005858825 = sum of:
    0.005858825 = product of:
      0.01171765 = sum of:
        0.01171765 = weight(_text_:of in 1538) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01171765 = score(doc=1538,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.17103596 = fieldWeight in 1538, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1538)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Footnote

Rez. in: Journal of academic librarianship 18(1992) S.45 (T.L. Shoptaugh); Libraries and culture 27(1992) S.219-220 (A.E. Prentice)

Imprint

Urbana-Champaign, Ill. : University of Illinois, GSLIS

0.0015782153 = product of:
  0.0047346456 = sum of:
    0.0047346456 = product of:
      0.009469291 = sum of:
        0.009469291 = weight(_text_:of in 482) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009469291 = score(doc=482,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.13821793 = fieldWeight in 482, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=482)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Reference archivists face challenging ethical dilemmas in the course of seemingly mundane daily tasks. While newly revised thical codes provide helpful guidelines, there are many ethical questions without clear answers. Rapidly evolving technology, changing expectations, and inconsistent privacy laws place pressures on reference work. These issues also open a window on the society whose cultural property archivists manage

0.0015782153 = product of:
  0.0047346456 = sum of:
    0.0047346456 = product of:
      0.009469291 = sum of:
        0.009469291 = weight(_text_:of in 3687) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009469291 = score(doc=3687,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.13821793 = fieldWeight in 3687, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3687)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Bibliothekswissenschaft - quo vadis? Eine Disziplin zwischen Traditionen und Visionen: Programme - Modelle - Forschungsaufgaben / Library Science - quo vadis? A Discipline between Challenges and Opportunities: Programs - Models - Research Assignments. Mit einem Geleitwort von / With a Preface by Guy St. Clair Consulting Specialist for Knowledge Management and Learning, New York, NY und einem Vorwort von / and a Foreword by Georg Ruppelt Sprecher von / Speaker of BID - Bibliothek & Information Deutschland Bundesvereinigung Deutscher Bibliotheksund Informationsverbände e.V. Hrsg. von P. Hauke

0.0011959276 = product of:
  0.0035877828 = sum of:
    0.0035877828 = product of:
      0.0071755657 = sum of:
        0.0071755657 = weight(_text_:of in 2905) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0071755657 = score(doc=2905,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.10473771 = fieldWeight in 2905, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2905)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Informationsethik ist Ethik von und für Menschen, deren Verhalten und Werte sich allerdings immer mehr in der Infosphere, in den Informationsumgebungen, entwickeln. Diese wiederum werden immer mehr von dem geprägt, was Telemediatisierung aller, auch und gerade der intellektuellen Lebenswelten genannt werden kann, also die Durchdringung dieser Lebenswelten mit Informations-, Kommunikations-, und Multi-/Hypermedia-Technologien. Daher kann in einem ersten Zugriff Informationsethik bestimmt werden als ein offenes Ensemble von Aussagen über normatives Verhalten gegenüber Wissen und Information, das sich in fortschreitend telemediatisierten Lebenswelten und in der Auseinandersetzung mit den in bisherigen Lebenswelten gültigen Werten und normativen Verhalten entwickelt. Die Abhängigkeit von dem Telemediatisierungsprozess könnte dazu verleiten, Informationsethik mit Computerethik oder Netzethik gleichzusetzen. Nicht alles, was am Thema Computer ethisch relevant sein könnte, sollte die Informationsethik für sich reklamieren - so wie die Informationswissenschaft ja auch einen spezifischeren Begriff von Information hat als die Informatik (vgl. Kap. A 1). Informationsethik ist Ethik in elektronischen Räumen. Das klingt spektakulär, ist aber doch keine Cyberethik, keine Ethik von epers(ons) (electronic personas), durch die in der virtuellen Realität z.B. Rechte und Pflichten von intelligenten Informationsassistenten (Cyborgs, Bots, Agenten) geregelt werden könnten. Solche Rechte von epers, wie z.B. "epers' rights include those of privacy, autonomy and anonymity" wurden und werden durchaus formuliert, so in einer ACM-Konferenz zum Thema Ethics in the Computer Age von 1995. Referenziert werden konnte diese Cyber-/Eper-Ethik auf die drei Asimovschen Gesetze für Roboter, die sich aber letztlich, anders als die Cyborgs and anders als die den Menschen ablösenden Maschinen von Hans Moravec, noch nicht von ihren Schöp fern, den Menschen, emanzipieren durften, sondern, im Sinne der ersten beiden Asimovschen Roboter-Gesetze, sich an den Interessen der Menschen auszurichten hatten. Erst dann, wenn diesen Interessen Genüge geleistet ist, dürften die Roboter auch an sich denken und Rechte und Freiheiten für sich reklamieren. Für Martha M. Smith in ihrem Information-Ethics-Artikel aus dem 32. Band der Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (ARIST) ist Informationsethik "concerned with the ethical conflicts and issues that arise in the use of information, information technologies, and information systems", und zwar will sie dabei vor allem professionelle Aspekte angesprochen sehen, nicht Fragen persönlicher Ethik. Letztere können wir hier im Jahr 2004 nicht mehr so deutlich ausgrenzen, zumal die Bereiche professioneller Fachinformation und informationeller Alltagswelten auf den Publikumsmärkten durch die Telemediatisierung, durch die Ubiquität des Internet ineinander übergehen. Der Universalisierung der Informationsethik haben auch die drei UNESCO-INFOethics-Konferenzen (1997, 1990 und 2000) Rechnung getragen, bei denen das Ethos der Informationsspezialisten nur am Rande eine Rolle spielte. Vielmehr spiegelten die INFOethics-Themen die ethischen (und - im Sinne einer auf Aristoteles bezogenen Trias - zugleich die politischen und ökonomischen) Herausforderungen der (globalen) Informationsgesellschaft wider - die UNESCO bevorzugt eher den Plural und Wissensgesellschaften