Search (33 results, page 1 of 2)

0.021129552 = product of:
  0.19016597 = sum of:
    0.19016597 = product of:
      0.38033193 = sum of:
        0.38033193 = weight(_text_:congresses in 1538) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.38033193 = score(doc=1538,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.30305997 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.113368 = idf(docFreq=35, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037353165 = queryNorm
            1.2549726 = fieldWeight in 1538, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              8.113368 = idf(docFreq=35, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1538)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

LCSH

Librarians / Professional ethics / Congresses
Library science / Moral and ethical aspects / Congresses

Subject

Librarians / Professional ethics / Congresses
Library science / Moral and ethical aspects / Congresses

0.014549504 = product of:
  0.06547277 = sum of:
    0.04403143 = weight(_text_:germany in 4127) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04403143 = score(doc=4127,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22275731 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.963546 = idf(docFreq=308, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037353165 = queryNorm
        0.19766548 = fieldWeight in 4127, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.963546 = idf(docFreq=308, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=4127)
    0.02144134 = weight(_text_:data in 4127) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02144134 = score(doc=4127,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.118112594 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037353165 = queryNorm
        0.18153305 = fieldWeight in 4127, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=4127)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Content

Inhalt: Super-Science, Fundamental Dimension, Way of Being: Library and Information Science in an Age of Messages / Bawden, David (et al.) (S.31-43) - The "Naturalization" of the Philosophy of Rafael Capurro: Logic, Information and Ethics / Brenner, Joseph E. (S.45-64) - Turing's Cyberworld / Eldred, Michael (S.65-81) - Hermeneutics and Information Science: The Ongoing Journey From Simple Objective Interpretation to Understanding Data as a Form of Disclosure / Kelly, Matthew (S.83-110) - The Epistemological Maturity of Information Science and the Debate Around Paradigms / Ribeiro, Fernanda (et al.) (S.111-124) - A Methodology for Studying Knowledge Creation in Organizational Settings: A Phenomenological Viewpoint / Suorsa, Anna (et al.) (S.125-142) - The Significance of Digital Hermeneutics for the Philosophy of Technology / Tripathi, Arun Kumar (S.143-157) - Reconciling Social Responsibility and Neutrality in LIS Professional Ethics: A Virtue Ethics Approach / Burgess, John T F (S.161-172) - Information Ethics in the Age of Digital Labour and the Surveillance-Industrial Complex / Fuchs, Christian (S.173-190) - Intercultural Information Ethics: A Pragmatic Consideration / Hongladarom, Soraj (S.191-206) - Ethics of European Institutions as Normative Foundation of Responsible Research and Innovation in ICT / Stahl, Bernd Carsten (S.207-219) - Raphael's / Holgate, John D. (S.223-245) - Understanding the Pulse of Existence: An Examination of Capurro's Angeletics / Morador, Fernando Flores (S.247-252) - The Demon in the Gap of Language: Capurro, Ethics and language in Divided Germany / Saldanha, Gustavo Silva (S.253-268) - General Intellect, Communication and Contemporary Media Theory / Frohmann, Bernd (S.271-286) - "Data": The data / Furner, Jonathan (S.287-306) - On the Pre-History of Library Ethics: Documents and Legitimacy / Hansson, Joacim (S.307-319) -

0.014519301 = product of:
  0.06533685 = sum of:
    0.024758326 = weight(_text_:data in 1135) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024758326 = score(doc=1135,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.118112594 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037353165 = queryNorm
        0.2096163 = fieldWeight in 1135, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1135)
    0.040578526 = weight(_text_:processing in 1135) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040578526 = score(doc=1135,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15121111 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037353165 = queryNorm
        0.26835677 = fieldWeight in 1135, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1135)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

This text proposes a multidisciplinary reflection on the subject of ethics, based on philosophical approaches, using Spinoza's work, Ethics, as a foundation. The power of Spinoza's geometric reasoning and deterministic logic, compatible with formal grammars and programming languages, provides a favorable framework for this purpose. In an information society characterized by an abundance of data and a diversity of perspectives, complex thinking is an essential tool for developing an ethical construct that can deal with the uncertainty and contradictions in the field. Acknowledging the natural complexity of ethics in interpersonal relationships, the use of AI techniques appears unavoidable. Artificial intelligence in KOS offers the potential for processing complex questions through the formal modeling of concepts in ethical discourse. By formalizing problems, we hope to unleash the potential of ethical analysis; by addressing complexity analysis, we propose a mechanism for understanding problems and empowering solutions.

0.014173493 = product of:
  0.12756144 = sum of:
    0.12756144 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 708) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12756144 = score(doc=708,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.14721331 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037353165 = queryNorm
        0.8665075 = fieldWeight in 708, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=708)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Ethics are principles which provide a framework for making decisions that best reflect a set of values. Cataloging carries power, so ethical decision-making is crucial. Because cataloging requires decision-making in areas that differ from other library work, cataloging ethics are a distinct subset of library ethics. Cataloging ethics draw on the primary values of serving the needs of users and providing access to materials. Cataloging ethics are not new, but they have received increased attention since the 1970s. Major current issues in cataloging ethics include the creation of a code of ethics; ongoing debate on the appropriate role of neutrality in cataloging misleading materials and in subject heading lists and classification schemes; how and to what degree considerations of privacy and self-determination should shape authority work; and whether or not our current cataloging codes are sufficiently user-focused.

Content

Vgl.: https://doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2020.1871458 Teil eines Themenheftes: Cataloging and Classification: Back to Basics.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 59(2021) no.2/3, S.281-304

0.011834323 = product of:
  0.053254455 = sum of:
    0.0330111 = weight(_text_:data in 3027) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0330111 = score(doc=3027,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.118112594 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037353165 = queryNorm
        0.2794884 = fieldWeight in 3027, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3027)
    0.020243352 = product of:
      0.040486705 = sum of:
        0.040486705 = weight(_text_:22 in 3027) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040486705 = score(doc=3027,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13080442 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037353165 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3027, 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=3027)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Date

22. 2.1999 15:57:43

0.011148395 = product of:
  0.10033555 = sum of:
    0.10033555 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10033555 = score(doc=1149,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.14721331 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037353165 = queryNorm
        0.68156576 = fieldWeight in 1149, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1149)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

The Cataloguing Code of Ethics, released in January 2021, was the product of a multi-national, multi-year endeavor by the Cataloging Ethics Steering Committee to create a useful framework for the discussion of cataloging ethics. The six Cataloging Ethics Steering Committee members, based in the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada, recount the efforts of the group and the cataloging community leading up to the release of the Code, as well as provide their thoughts on the challenges of creating the document, lessons learned, and the future of the Code.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 60(2022) no.8, p.786-806

0.009971427 = product of:
  0.08974284 = sum of:
    0.08974284 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 1034) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08974284 = score(doc=1034,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14721331 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037353165 = queryNorm
        0.6096109 = fieldWeight in 1034, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1034)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

0.0075145424 = product of:
  0.06763088 = sum of:
    0.06763088 = weight(_text_:processing in 784) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06763088 = score(doc=784,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15121111 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037353165 = queryNorm
        0.4472613 = fieldWeight in 784, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=784)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Footnote

Rez. in: Managing information 3(1996) no.3, S.48 (R. Nelsson): Information processing and management 32(1996) no.4, S.497-498 (T.J. Froehlich)

0.006043597 = product of:
  0.054392375 = sum of:
    0.054392375 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 2370) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.054392375 = score(doc=2370,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14721331 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037353165 = queryNorm
        0.36948 = fieldWeight in 2370, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2370)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

This paper examines the limited literature about ethics of cataloging in order to elucidate the kind of situations catalogers face with minimal ethical guidance, and the questions those situations raise for the profession. Existing codes of ethics for library staff offer only peripheral guidelines for catalogers, leaving them adrift when ethical issues arise. Ultimately the lack of a clear code of ethics for information organization reinforces existing mystification around the role of catalogers within the library and causes difficulty in justifying decisions to supervisors and administrators. While ALA has a professionally accepted code of ethics, and ALCTS has a supplement to it, these codes are inadequate to clarify and guide cataloging work. Two vastly different approaches to a code of ethics for catalogers are considered for both their strengths and weaknesses. The author will make recommendations about what a code of ethics for catalogers should include, and who should be responsible for creating a new code for the profession.

0.0056153024 = product of:
  0.05053772 = sum of:
    0.05053772 = weight(_text_:data in 1134) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05053772 = score(doc=1134,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.118112594 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037353165 = queryNorm
        0.4278775 = fieldWeight in 1134, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1134)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

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.

0.0038903956 = product of:
  0.03501356 = sum of:
    0.03501356 = weight(_text_:data in 5600) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03501356 = score(doc=5600,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.118112594 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037353165 = queryNorm
        0.29644224 = fieldWeight in 5600, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5600)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Big Data, Nudging, Verhaltenssteuerung: Droht uns die Automatisierung der Gesellschaft durch Algorithmen und künstliche Intelligenz? Ein Appell zur Sicherung von Freiheit und Demokratie.

Content

Neun internationale Experten warnen vor der Aushöhlung unserer Bürgerrechte und der Demokratie im Zuge der digitalen Technikrevolution. Wir steuern demnach geradewegs auf die Automatisierung unserer Gesellschaft und die Fernsteuerung ihrer Bürger durch Algorithmen zu, in denen sich »Big Data« und »Nudging«-Methoden zu einem mächtigen Instrument vereinen. Erste Ansätze dazu lassen sich bereits in China und Singapur beobachten. Ein Zehnpunkteplan soll helfen, jetzt die richtigen Weichen zu stellen, um auch im digitalen Zeitalter Freiheitsrechte und Demokratie zu bewahren und die sich ergebenden Chancen zu nutzen. Vgl. auch das Interview mit D. Helbing zur Resonanz unter: http://www.spektrum.de/news/wie-social-bots-den-brexit-verursachten/1423912. Vgl. auch: https://www.spektrum.de/kolumne/das-grosse-scheitern/1685328.

0.0038903956 = product of:
  0.03501356 = sum of:
    0.03501356 = weight(_text_:data in 899) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03501356 = score(doc=899,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.118112594 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037353165 = queryNorm
        0.29644224 = fieldWeight in 899, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=899)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

The scale and complexity of the data and algorithms used in artificial intelligence (AI)-based systems present significant challenges for anticipating their ethical, legal, and policy implications. Given these challenges, who does the work of AI ethics, and how do they do it? This study reports findings from interviews with 26 stakeholders in AI research, law, and policy. The primary themes are that the work of AI ethics is structured by personal values and professional commitments, and that it involves situated meaning-making through data and algorithms. Given the stakes involved, it is not enough to simply satisfy that AI will not behave unethically; rather, the work of AI ethics needs to be incentivized.

0.0036679 = product of:
  0.0330111 = sum of:
    0.0330111 = weight(_text_:data in 4848) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0330111 = score(doc=4848,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.118112594 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037353165 = queryNorm
        0.2794884 = fieldWeight in 4848, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4848)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

0.003561224 = product of:
  0.032051016 = sum of:
    0.032051016 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 2513) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032051016 = score(doc=2513,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14721331 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037353165 = queryNorm
        0.21771818 = fieldWeight in 2513, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2513)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

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.

0.003561224 = product of:
  0.032051016 = sum of:
    0.032051016 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 1136) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032051016 = score(doc=1136,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14721331 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037353165 = queryNorm
        0.21771818 = fieldWeight in 1136, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1136)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

The paper examines the integration of born-digital and digitized content into an outdated classification system within the Museum of European Cultures in Berlin. It underscores the predicament encountered by smaller to medium-sized cultural institutions as they navigate between adhering to established knowl­edge management systems and preserving an expanding array of contemporary cultural artifacts. The perspective of infrastructure studies is employed to scrutinize the representation of diverse viewpoints and voices within the museum's collections. The study delves into museum personnel's challenges in cataloging and classifying ethnographic objects utilizing a numerical-alphabetical categorization scheme from the 1930s. It presents an analysis of the limitations inherent in this method, along with its implications for the assimilation of emerging forms of born-digital and digitized objects. Through an exploration of the case of category 74, as observed at the Museum of European Cultures, the study illustrates the complexities of replacing pre-existing systems due to their intricate integration into the socio-technical components of the museum's information infrastructure. The paper reflects on how resource-constrained cultural institutions can take a proactive and ethical approach to knowl­edge management, re-evaluating their knowl­edge infrastructure to promote inclusion and ensure adaptability.

0.0032094126 = product of:
  0.028884713 = sum of:
    0.028884713 = weight(_text_:data in 2461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028884713 = score(doc=2461,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.118112594 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037353165 = queryNorm
        0.24455236 = fieldWeight in 2461, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2461)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Scholars in major US research universities were surveyed to explore the normative bases of acknowledgement behaviour. Measures of agreement and divergence were established in respect of five issue sets pertaining to acknowledgement practice: expectations, etiquette, ethics, equity and evaluation. The results confirm the substantive role played by acknowledgements in the primary communication process. Although few formal rules exist, it is clear that many scholars subscribe to the idea of a governing etiquette. The findings also suggest that acknowledgement data could be mined to lay bare the rules of engagement that define the dynamics of collaboration and interdependence among scholars

0.0032094126 = product of:
  0.028884713 = sum of:
    0.028884713 = weight(_text_:data in 1698) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028884713 = score(doc=1698,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.118112594 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037353165 = queryNorm
        0.24455236 = fieldWeight in 1698, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1698)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Im ersten Teil des Beitrages wird eine kurze Zusammenfassung der Diskussion um den Schutz der Privatheit in Recht und Ethik gegeben. Der Schwerpunkt liegt dabei auf der Informationsethik. Im zweiten Teil werden einige für die Wissensorganisation relevante Beispiele für den Umgang mit personenbezogenen Daten diskutiert: u. a. Web Information Retrieval, Data Mining sowie FOAF als Beispiel für die Standardisierung von personenbezogenen Informationen.

0.0025935972 = product of:
  0.023342375 = sum of:
    0.023342375 = weight(_text_:data in 5878) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023342375 = score(doc=5878,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.118112594 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037353165 = queryNorm
        0.19762816 = fieldWeight in 5878, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5878)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

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.

0.0022924377 = product of:
  0.02063194 = sum of:
    0.02063194 = weight(_text_:data in 3424) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02063194 = score(doc=3424,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.118112594 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037353165 = queryNorm
        0.17468026 = fieldWeight in 3424, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3424)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Information and communication technology (ICT) has increasingly important implications for our everyday lives, with the potential to both solve existing social problems and create new ones. This article focuses on one particular group of ICT professionals, computational modelers, and explores how these ICT professionals perceive their own societal responsibilities. Specifically, the article uses a mixed-method approach to look at the role of professional codes of ethics and explores the relationship between modelers' experiences with, and attitudes toward, codes of ethics and their values. Statistical analysis of survey data reveals a relationship between modelers' values and their attitudes and experiences related to codes of ethics. Thematic analysis of interviews with a subset of survey participants identifies two key themes: that modelers should be faithful to the reality and values of users and that codes of ethics should be built from the bottom up. One important implication of the research is that those who value universalism and benevolence may have a particular duty to act on their values and advocate for, and work to develop, a code of ethics.

0.0022924377 = product of:
  0.02063194 = sum of:
    0.02063194 = weight(_text_:data in 4149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02063194 = score(doc=4149,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.118112594 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037353165 = queryNorm
        0.17468026 = fieldWeight in 4149, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4149)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

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.