Search (52 results, page 2 of 3)

0.012924549 = product of:
  0.051698197 = sum of:
    0.051698197 = weight(_text_:digital in 5600) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051698197 = score(doc=5600,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.26148933 = fieldWeight in 5600, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5600)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.012816738 = product of:
  0.051266953 = sum of:
    0.051266953 = product of:
      0.10253391 = sum of:
        0.10253391 = weight(_text_:project in 3548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10253391 = score(doc=3548,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.48465237 = fieldWeight in 3548, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3548)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to present the activities of the European project Ethicsweb, funded under the 7th Framework Program of the European Commission, placing special emphasis on the semantic approach provided by this project. The objectives of Ethicsweb are basically those of: (a) facilitating access to information on ethics in science through an integrated infrastructure; (b) developing sophisticated tools, both technical and semantic to establish the above mentioned infrastructure; (c) creating a European Reference Center for Bioethics, in order to collect the information provided by various local centers and international organizations; (d) developing multilingual tools (thesauri and ontologies) for indexing and searching of documents in bioethics. In this paper the authors will present the steps undertaken until now, such as application profiles, XML schemes and examples.

0.012185382 = product of:
  0.048741527 = sum of:
    0.048741527 = weight(_text_:digital in 5878) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048741527 = score(doc=5878,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.2465345 = fieldWeight in 5878, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5878)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.011604695 = product of:
  0.04641878 = sum of:
    0.04641878 = weight(_text_:library in 1065) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04641878 = score(doc=1065,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.3522223 = fieldWeight in 1065, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1065)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper explores the ethics of classification. The paper outlines recent conceptual moves in knowledge organization research and shows that contemporary classification theory is based on a pragmatic understanding of the world. It suggests that unjust statements and assumptions about the world challenge contemporary library classifications and that a proper response is needed. It outlines a framework for the development of ethical classifications based on MacIntyre's practice-based ethical theory. It provides a framework within which editors and managers of library classifications can make ethically sound decisions.

0.011485667 = product of:
  0.045942668 = sum of:
    0.045942668 = weight(_text_:library in 3207) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045942668 = score(doc=3207,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.34860963 = fieldWeight in 3207, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3207)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Footnote

Rez. in: Australian library journal 47(1998) no.2, S.190-191 (J. Dartnall)

0.011485667 = product of:
  0.045942668 = sum of:
    0.045942668 = weight(_text_:library in 431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045942668 = score(doc=431,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.34860963 = fieldWeight in 431, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=431)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Footnote

Rez. in: Library and archival security 14(1998) no.2, S.85-86 (P.M. Boland)

0.011485667 = product of:
  0.045942668 = sum of:
    0.045942668 = weight(_text_:library in 930) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045942668 = score(doc=930,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.34860963 = fieldWeight in 930, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=930)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.011485667 = product of:
  0.045942668 = sum of:
    0.045942668 = weight(_text_:library in 69) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045942668 = score(doc=69,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.34860963 = fieldWeight in 69, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=69)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Footnote

Rez. in: Library review 46(1997) nos.5/6, S.365-367 (S. Hannabuss)

0.010828791 = product of:
  0.043315165 = sum of:
    0.043315165 = weight(_text_:library in 5518) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043315165 = score(doc=5518,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.32867232 = fieldWeight in 5518, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5518)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Beitrag in einem Themenheft: 'Race and Ethnicity in Library and Information Science: An Update'.

Source

Library trends. 67(2018) no.1, S.52-73

0.010770457 = product of:
  0.043081827 = sum of:
    0.043081827 = weight(_text_:digital in 2771) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043081827 = score(doc=2771,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.21790776 = fieldWeight in 2771, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, 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.

0.009946881 = product of:
  0.039787523 = sum of:
    0.039787523 = weight(_text_:library in 3778) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.039787523 = score(doc=3778,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.30190483 = fieldWeight in 3778, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3778)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

Source

Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed.: M.J. Bates

0.009475192 = product of:
  0.03790077 = sum of:
    0.03790077 = weight(_text_:library in 1538) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03790077 = score(doc=1538,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.28758827 = fieldWeight in 1538, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1538)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

LCSH

Library science / Moral and ethical aspects / Congresses

Subject

Library science / Moral and ethical aspects / Congresses

0.0086163655 = product of:
  0.034465462 = sum of:
    0.034465462 = weight(_text_:digital in 1360) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034465462 = score(doc=1360,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.17432621 = fieldWeight in 1360, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, 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.]

0.008121594 = product of:
  0.032486375 = sum of:
    0.032486375 = weight(_text_:library in 2370) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032486375 = score(doc=2370,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.24650425 = fieldWeight in 2370, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2370)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.008121594 = product of:
  0.032486375 = sum of:
    0.032486375 = weight(_text_:library in 708) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032486375 = score(doc=708,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.24650425 = fieldWeight in 708, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=708)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.0076571116 = product of:
  0.030628446 = sum of:
    0.030628446 = weight(_text_:library in 8156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030628446 = score(doc=8156,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.23240642 = fieldWeight in 8156, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=8156)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Australian library journal. 42(1993) no.3, S.172-181

0.0076571116 = product of:
  0.030628446 = sum of:
    0.030628446 = weight(_text_:library in 3706) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030628446 = score(doc=3706,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.23240642 = fieldWeight in 3706, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3706)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Offers a definition of ethics for librarians by recent concerns in the uSA about the Code of Ethics (1981) of the ALA and by examination of other codes of ethics, such as that produced by the Library Association, UK, and the writings of librarians and ethicists. Concludes with notes on the revision of the 1981 Code of Ethics, adopted by the ALA on 28 June 95, comparing the 2 codes and noting the differences where applicable

0.0076571116 = product of:
  0.030628446 = sum of:
    0.030628446 = weight(_text_:library in 2457) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030628446 = score(doc=2457,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.23240642 = fieldWeight in 2457, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2457)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

A value-based reference policy satisfies both the practical convcerns of the reference librarian and the principles stated in the Library Bill of Rights and the ALA Code of Ethics. One such value is justice, as described by John Rawls in 'A Theory of Justice'. A reference policy based on Rawls' system provides equitable service to all members of an academic community while permitting the librarian to uphold the ideal of freedom of access to information

0.0076571116 = product of:
  0.030628446 = sum of:
    0.030628446 = weight(_text_:library in 3687) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030628446 = score(doc=3687,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.23240642 = fieldWeight in 3687, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3687)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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

0.0076571116 = product of:
  0.030628446 = sum of:
    0.030628446 = weight(_text_:library in 3774) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030628446 = score(doc=3774,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.23240642 = fieldWeight in 3774, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3774)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed.: M.J. Bates