Search (67 results, page 4 of 4)

0.0044454644 = product of:
  0.013336393 = sum of:
    0.013336393 = weight(_text_:on in 418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013336393 = score(doc=418,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 418, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=418)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Content

Beitrag aus einem Themenheft zu den Proceedings of the 2nd Milwaukee Conference on Ethics in Information Organization, June 15-16, 2012, School of Information Studies, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Hope A. Olson, Conference Chair. Vgl.: http://www.ergon-verlag.de/isko_ko/downloads/ko_39_2012_5_b.pdf.

0.0044454644 = product of:
  0.013336393 = sum of:
    0.013336393 = weight(_text_:on in 4149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013336393 = score(doc=4149,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 4149, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4149)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

0.0044454644 = product of:
  0.013336393 = sum of:
    0.013336393 = weight(_text_:on in 5728) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013336393 = score(doc=5728,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 5728, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5728)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The paper traces the development of the discussion around ethical issues in artificial intelligence, and considers the way in which humans have affected the knowledge bases used in machine learning. The phenomenon of bias or discrimination in machine ethics is seen as inherited from humans, either through the use of biased data or through the semantics inherent in intellectually- built tools sourced by intelligent agents. The kind of biases observed in AI are compared with those identified in the field of knowledge organization, using religious adherents as an example of a community potentially marginalized by bias. A practical demonstration is given of apparent religious prejudice inherited from source material in a large database deployed widely in computational linguistics and automatic indexing. Methods to address the problem of bias are discussed, including the modelling of the moral process on neuroscientific understanding of brain function. The question is posed whether it is possible to model religious belief in a similar way, so that robots of the future may have both an ethical and a religious sense and themselves address the problem of prejudice.

0.0044454644 = product of:
  0.013336393 = sum of:
    0.013336393 = weight(_text_:on in 404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013336393 = score(doc=404,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 404, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=404)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic is an international public health crisis without precedent in the last century. The novelty and rapid spread of the virus have added a new urgency to the availability and distribution of reliable information to help curb its fatal potential. As seasoned and trusted purveyors of reliable public information, librarians have attempted to respond to the "infodemic" of fake news, disinformation, and propaganda with a variety of strategies, but the COVID-19 pandemic presents a unique challenge because of the deadly stakes involved. The seriousness of the current situation requires that librarians and associated professionals re-evaluate the ethical basis of their approach to information provision to counter the growing prominence of conspiracy theories in the public sphere and official decision making. This paper analyzes the conspiracy mindset and specific COVID-19 conspiracy theories in discussing how libraries might address the problems of truth and untruth in ethically sound ways. As a contribution to the re-evaluation we propose, the paper presents an ethical framework based on alethic rights-or rights to truth-as conceived by Italian philosopher Franca D'Agostini and how these might inform professional approaches that support personal safety, open knowledge, and social justice.

0.0039442177 = product of:
  0.011832653 = sum of:
    0.011832653 = product of:
      0.023665305 = sum of:
        0.023665305 = weight(_text_:22 in 459) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023665305 = score(doc=459,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 459, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=459)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Im Rahmen des 3. Leipziger Kongresses für Information und Bibliothek 19.-22. März 2007 hat Bibliothek & Information Deutschland (BID) die im folgenden wiedergegebenen "Ethischen Grundsätze der Bibliotheks- und Informationsberufe" verabschiedet und der Presse und Fachöffentlichkeit vorgestellt. Damit folgt Deutschland den rund 40 Ländern weltweit, die bereits einen "Code of Ethics" veröffentlicht haben. Diese ethischen Richtlinien sind auf der IFLA/FAIFE-Website gesammelt unter www.ifla.org/faife/ethics/codes.htm.

0.0035563714 = product of:
  0.010669114 = sum of:
    0.010669114 = weight(_text_:on in 5878) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010669114 = score(doc=5878,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.097201325 = fieldWeight in 5878, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, 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.

0.0033807578 = product of:
  0.010142273 = sum of:
    0.010142273 = product of:
      0.020284547 = sum of:
        0.020284547 = weight(_text_:22 in 462) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020284547 = score(doc=462,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 462, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=462)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Im Rahmen des 3. Leipziger Kongresses für Information und Bibliothek 19.-22. März 2007 hat Bibliothek & Information Deutschland (BID) die im folgenden wiedergegebenen "Ethischen Grundsätze der Bibliotheks- und Informationsberufe" verabschiedet und der Presse und Fachöffentlichkeit vorgestellt. Damit folgt Deutschland den rund 40 Ländern weltweit, die bereits einen "Code of Ethics" veröffentlicht haben. Diese ethischen Richtlinien sind auf der IFLA/FAIFE-Website gesammelt unter www.ifla.org/faife/ethics/codes.htm.