Search (40 results, page 1 of 2)

0.05708161 = product of:
  0.085622415 = sum of:
    0.061794292 = weight(_text_:social in 2453) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.061794292 = score(doc=2453,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20037155 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050248925 = queryNorm
        0.30839854 = fieldWeight in 2453, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2453)
    0.023828125 = product of:
      0.04765625 = sum of:
        0.04765625 = weight(_text_:22 in 2453) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04765625 = score(doc=2453,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17596318 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050248925 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2453, 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=2453)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

An awareness exists among Italian librarians of the need for an established code of ethics for library reference services. Considers the principles that such a code should incorporate; the US Commitment to Information services, for example, affirms users' rights of access to library books and resources, regardless of content and opinions expressed. Censoship is opposed and people are not barred from library use for ethnis, social or religious reasons. An ethical code would require library staff to be impartial, give attention and respect to users, allocate time properly, and avoid prejudice. Discusses the problems of library ethics which arise when user requests relate to sensitive topics e.g. euthansia, cocaine refining

Date

6. 4.1996 13:22:31

0.050967082 = product of:
  0.15290125 = sum of:
    0.15290125 = weight(_text_:social in 8700) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15290125 = score(doc=8700,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.20037155 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050248925 = queryNorm
        0.7630886 = fieldWeight in 8700, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=8700)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The diffuse focus of ethical discourse in computing is confusing. Clarifies the relation of computer ethics to issues of personal freedom, social control, and social inequality, seeks to provide human service workers and other professional computer specialists with a framework for identifying the social effects and moral dimensions of computerization

0.040773667 = product of:
  0.122320995 = sum of:
    0.122320995 = weight(_text_:social in 5518) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.122320995 = score(doc=5518,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.20037155 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050248925 = queryNorm
        0.6104709 = fieldWeight in 5518, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5518)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Classification and the organization of information are directly connected to issues surrounding social justice, diversity, and inclusion. This paper is written from the standpoint that political and epistemological aspects of knowledge organization are fundamental to research and practice and suggests ways to integrate social justice and diversity issues into courses on the organization of information.

0.03350689 = product of:
  0.05026033 = sum of:
    0.03822531 = weight(_text_:social in 2392) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03822531 = score(doc=2392,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.20037155 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050248925 = 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)
    0.012035021 = product of:
      0.024070041 = sum of:
        0.024070041 = weight(_text_:22 in 2392) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024070041 = score(doc=2392,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17596318 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050248925 = 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)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

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

Information technology / Social aspects

Subject

Information technology / Social aspects

0.032047577 = product of:
  0.096142724 = sum of:
    0.096142724 = sum of:
      0.06210254 = weight(_text_:networks in 1868) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06210254 = score(doc=1868,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23767339 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050248925 = queryNorm
          0.26129362 = fieldWeight in 1868, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1868)
      0.03404018 = weight(_text_:22 in 1868) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03404018 = score(doc=1868,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17596318 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050248925 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This article introduces a normative principle for the behavior of contemporary computing and communication systems and considers some of its consequences. The principle, named the principle of distribution, says that in a distributed multi-agent system, control resides as much as possible with the individuals constituting the system rather than in centralized agents; and when that is unfeasible or becomes inappropriate due to environmental changes, control evolves upwards from the individuals to an appropriate intermediate level rather than being imposed from above. The setting for the work is the dynamically changing global space resulting from ubiquitous communication. Accordingly, the article begins by determining the characteristics of the distributed multi-agent space it spans. It then fleshes out the principle of distribution, with examples from daily life as well as from Computer Science. The case is made for the principle of distribution to work at various levels of abstraction of system behavior: to inform the high-level discussion that ought to precede the more low-level concerns of technology, protocols, and standardization, but also to facilitate those lower levels. Of the more substantial applications given here of the principle of distribution, a technical example concerns the design of secure ad hoc networks of mobile devices, achievable without any form of centralized authentication or identification but in a solely distributed manner. Here, the context is how the principle can be used to provide new and provably secure protocols for genuinely ubiquitous communication. A second, more managerial example concerns the distributed production and management of open-source software, and a third investigates some pertinent questions involving the dynamic restructuring of control in distributed systems, important in times of disaster or malevolence.

Date

1. 6.2008 12:22:41

0.03058025 = product of:
  0.09174075 = sum of:
    0.09174075 = weight(_text_:social in 1870) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09174075 = score(doc=1870,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.20037155 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050248925 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

0.029425856 = product of:
  0.08827756 = sum of:
    0.08827756 = weight(_text_:social in 2369) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08827756 = score(doc=2369,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.20037155 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050248925 = queryNorm
        0.44056937 = fieldWeight in 2369, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2369)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This paper arises from the possibility of a theoretical dialogue between the socio-cognitive perspectives of knowledge organization and the Bakhtinian concepts on conscience, "responsible act," "responsive understanding," and polyphony as attitudes that motivate the dialogism that is inherent to language. Those questions allow us to recognize the professional that organizes and represents knowledge as someone who has an intersubjective conscience, a product composed by two axes that are indeed deeply connected: the "self " and the "other." Therefore, the acts of representing and organizing knowledge are deeply affected by external discourses and by internal discourses. Those different discourses come together at the moment of representing the knowledge and act as a response to the dialogues between the external and the internal discourses. As a consequence, the indexing/ classification codes, terms or signs assume a dialogical and dynamic representativeness in order to correspond not only to the contents of the documents but also to dialogue with a diverse user community, by the recognition of the alterity/otherness of the social actors and the social situations. Finally, it is important to point out the need of an ethical and democratic attitude of the indexer/classifier, in order to represent the social pluralism and show an equipollence of social voices.

0.029130112 = product of:
  0.08739033 = sum of:
    0.08739033 = weight(_text_:social in 4589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08739033 = score(doc=4589,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.20037155 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050248925 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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

0.025483541 = product of:
  0.07645062 = sum of:
    0.07645062 = weight(_text_:social in 418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07645062 = score(doc=418,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.20037155 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050248925 = queryNorm
        0.3815443 = fieldWeight in 418, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, 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.

0.025483541 = product of:
  0.07645062 = sum of:
    0.07645062 = weight(_text_:social in 671) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07645062 = score(doc=671,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.20037155 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050248925 = queryNorm
        0.3815443 = fieldWeight in 671, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=671)
  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

Content

Inhalt: Introduction -- Autonomy, agency, and responsibility -- What can agents reasonably endorse? -- What we informationally owe each other -- Freedom, agency, and information technology -- Epistemic paternalism and social media -- Agency laundering and information technologies -- Democratic obligations and technological threats to legitimacy -- Conclusions and caveats

0.024968667 = product of:
  0.074906 = sum of:
    0.074906 = weight(_text_:social in 3778) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.074906 = score(doc=3778,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.20037155 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050248925 = 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)
  0.33333334 = 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.

0.023540687 = product of:
  0.07062206 = sum of:
    0.07062206 = weight(_text_:social in 7748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07062206 = score(doc=7748,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20037155 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050248925 = queryNorm
        0.3524555 = fieldWeight in 7748, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7748)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Discusses how we can ensure that the benefits of information technology are distributed equitably and can be used by people to shape their lives. Examines some ethical aspects of the intersections between information technology and technologies of the self, as analyzed by some leading thinkers. The analyzes show that information technology shares the ambiguities of all technological products. The mutual dependency between moral rules and technologies of the self with regard to the social impact of information technology is also demonstrated

0.023540687 = product of:
  0.07062206 = sum of:
    0.07062206 = weight(_text_:social in 2458) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07062206 = score(doc=2458,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20037155 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050248925 = queryNorm
        0.3524555 = fieldWeight in 2458, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2458)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

As computers, the Internet, online digtial resources, and eventually the National Information Infrastructure become increasingly important. The study of their use has become a fast growing areas in social science. This research is important but it raises questions of ethics and human dignity. Major research universities have guidelines for this kind of scholarship, based on the Nuremberg Code and/or the Belmont principles. But research in cyberspace was not on the minds of those drafting these guidelines. Discusses some of the difficulties produced by tensions between traditional guidelines and new technologies

0.023540687 = product of:
  0.07062206 = sum of:
    0.07062206 = weight(_text_:social in 790) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07062206 = score(doc=790,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20037155 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050248925 = queryNorm
        0.3524555 = fieldWeight in 790, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=790)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The comparison among some lists of ethical values prevalent in various professions related to knowledge organization shows that three of these values (intellectual freedom, professionalism, and social responsibility) could be the core of a general knowledge organization ethics, and that two other values (intellectual property and right to privacy) could be added to them in the future, as they are already among the fundamental values of the library profession.

0.020807223 = product of:
  0.06242167 = sum of:
    0.06242167 = weight(_text_:social in 1134) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06242167 = score(doc=1134,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.20037155 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050248925 = queryNorm
        0.3115296 = fieldWeight in 1134, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1134)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Personal data play a fundamental role in contemporary socioeconomic dynamics, with one of its primary aspects being the potential to facilitate discriminatory situations. This situation impacts the knowledge organization field especially because it considers personal data as elements (facets) to categorize persons under an economic and sometimes discriminatory perspective. The research corpus was collected at Scopus and Web of Science until the end of 2021, under the terms "data discrimination", "algorithmic bias", "algorithmic discrimination" and "fair algorithms". The obtained results allowed to infer that the analyzed knowledge domain predominantly incorporates personal data, whether in its behavioral dimension or in the scope of the so-called sensitive data. These data are susceptible to the action of algorithms of different orders, such as relevance, filtering, predictive, social ranking, content recommendation and random classification. Such algorithms can have discriminatory biases in their programming related to gender, sexual orientation, race, nationality, religion, age, social class, socioeconomic profile, physical appearance, and political positioning.

0.020700848 = product of:
  0.06210254 = sum of:
    0.06210254 = product of:
      0.12420508 = sum of:
        0.12420508 = weight(_text_:networks in 7243) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12420508 = score(doc=7243,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23767339 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050248925 = queryNorm
            0.52258724 = fieldWeight in 7243, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=7243)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  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

0.020598099 = product of:
  0.061794292 = sum of:
    0.061794292 = weight(_text_:social in 1580) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.061794292 = score(doc=1580,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20037155 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050248925 = queryNorm
        0.30839854 = fieldWeight in 1580, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1580)
  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

0.020598099 = product of:
  0.061794292 = sum of:
    0.061794292 = weight(_text_:social in 2449) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.061794292 = score(doc=2449,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20037155 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050248925 = queryNorm
        0.30839854 = fieldWeight in 2449, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2449)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Discusses various ethical issues which are germane to the global information age. Argues that such profuse and rapid technological change demands a reexamination of how society is defined and understood in this increasingly global environment where technology bridges temporal and spatial boundaries. Alongside the comes the necessity for a reevaluation of societal and informational values. Discusses cross-cultural problems associated with the information age; philosophical aspects of technology; and problems of social equity arising from the concept of information rich versus the information poor. Considers the ethical role of libraries in the information age concluding that libraries can dissolve the lines that have been drawn between the have and the have-nots. Librarians must understand and adhere to their traditional ethical guidelines while also moving forward and readjusting wit - not to - technology

0.020386834 = product of:
  0.061160497 = sum of:
    0.061160497 = weight(_text_:social in 5876) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.061160497 = score(doc=5876,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.20037155 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050248925 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

0.020386834 = product of:
  0.061160497 = sum of:
    0.061160497 = weight(_text_:social in 5878) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.061160497 = score(doc=5878,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.20037155 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050248925 = queryNorm
        0.30523545 = fieldWeight in 5878, 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=5878)
  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.