-
Van der Walt, M.S.: Normative ethics in knowledge organisation (2008)
0.04
0.040192712 = product of:
0.11253959 = sum of:
0.030006537 = weight(_text_:subject in 1696) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030006537 = score(doc=1696,freq=4.0), product of:
0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.27942157 = fieldWeight in 1696, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1696)
0.016822865 = weight(_text_:classification in 1696) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.016822865 = score(doc=1696,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.17593184 = fieldWeight in 1696, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1696)
0.0237488 = product of:
0.0474976 = sum of:
0.0474976 = weight(_text_:schemes in 1696) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0474976 = score(doc=1696,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16067243 = queryWeight, product of:
5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.2956176 = fieldWeight in 1696, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1696)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.02513852 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 1696) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02513852 = score(doc=1696,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.21506234 = fieldWeight in 1696, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1696)
0.016822865 = weight(_text_:classification in 1696) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.016822865 = score(doc=1696,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.17593184 = fieldWeight in 1696, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1696)
0.35714287 = coord(5/14)
- Abstract
- The paper addresses the problem of whether the information profession needs ethical norms or guidelines specifically aimed at situations that may arise during knowledge organisation processes, and, if so, which specific norms should be included in codes of conduct. To explore this issue the following three specific questions are addressed: - Which forms of unethical conduct actually occur in knowledge organisation? - Which specific guidelines are required for promoting ethical practices in knowledge organisation? - To what extent does existing ethical codes make provision for knowledge organization practices? Four categories of unethical conduct in knowledge organisation are identified: - The use of terms with negative connotations - Misrepresentation of the subject - Censorship of "undesirable materials" - Bias in verbal indexing languages, classification schemes, evaluative comments in bibliographic records and subject analysis. Guidelines in codes of conduct should be aimed at encouraging information professionals to avoid these unethical practices. An examination of a number of existing ethical codes for the information profession shows that, although general ethical statements, that can be seen as applicable to knowledge organisation tasks, do occur in these codes, this is by no means a general trend. It is also clear that very few of the codes give explicit attention to knowledge organisation.
-
Fernández-Molina, J.C.; Chaves Guimaraes, J.A.: Ethical aspects of knowledge organization and representation in the digital environment : their articulation in professional codes of ethics (2003)
0.01
0.0067974646 = product of:
0.04758225 = sum of:
0.023791125 = weight(_text_:classification in 2765) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023791125 = score(doc=2765,freq=4.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.24880521 = fieldWeight in 2765, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2765)
0.023791125 = weight(_text_:classification in 2765) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023791125 = score(doc=2765,freq=4.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.24880521 = fieldWeight in 2765, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2765)
0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
- Abstract
- Studies an ethical aspects of our profession rarely focus an matters related with the organization and representation of knowledge, but are directed instead toward such subjects as intellectual property, right to privacy, intellectual freedom, or proper professional conduct. Nonetheless, the technological possibilities nowadays have meant a radical change. In the past, a certain policy for indexing or a classification system produced effects only in the relatively limited setting of a library or information center; but now the indexing or classification of certain electronic information resources has effects that go far beyond the physical boundaries of such institutions, or even those of a country. The objective of the present study is, an the one hand, to identify the principal ethical values related with the organization and representation of knowledge, and an the other hand, to see to what degree they are addressed by the ethical codes of professional associations.
-
Van der Walt, M.S.: Ethics in indexing and clssification (2006)
0.01
0.0054379716 = product of:
0.0380658 = sum of:
0.0190329 = weight(_text_:classification in 5876) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0190329 = score(doc=5876,freq=4.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.19904417 = fieldWeight in 5876, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5876)
0.0190329 = weight(_text_:classification in 5876) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0190329 = score(doc=5876,freq=4.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.19904417 = fieldWeight in 5876, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5876)
0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
- 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.
-
Chaves Guimaraes, J.A.; Fernández-Molina, J.C.; Pinho, F.A.; Oliveira Milani, S.: Ethics in the knowledge organization environment : an overview of values and problems in the LIS literature (2008)
0.00
0.004806533 = product of:
0.03364573 = sum of:
0.016822865 = weight(_text_:classification in 2513) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.016822865 = score(doc=2513,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.17593184 = fieldWeight in 2513, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2513)
0.016822865 = weight(_text_:classification in 2513) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.016822865 = score(doc=2513,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.17593184 = fieldWeight in 2513, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2513)
0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
- 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.
-
Information ethics : privacy, property, and power (2005)
0.00
0.0025428846 = product of:
0.017800191 = sum of:
0.010608913 = weight(_text_:subject in 2392) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.010608913 = score(doc=2392,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.098790444 = fieldWeight in 2392, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2392)
0.007191278 = product of:
0.014382556 = sum of:
0.014382556 = weight(_text_:22 in 2392) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014382556 = score(doc=2392,freq=4.0), product of:
0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = 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)
0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
- Classification
- 323.44/5 22 (GBV;LoC)
- DDC
- 323.44/5 22 (GBV;LoC)
- Footnote
- The book also includes an index, a selected bibliography, and endnotes for each article. More information on the authors of the articles would have been useful, however. One of the best features of Information Ethics is the discussion cases at the end of each chapter. For instance, in the discussion cases, Moore asks questions like: Would you allow one person to die to save nine? Should a scientist be allowed to experiment on people without their knowledge if there is no harm? Should marriages between people carrying a certain gene be outlawed? These discussion cases really add to the value of the readings. The only suggestion would be to have put them at the beginning of each section so the reader could have the questions floating in their heads as they read the material. Information Ethics is a well thought out and organized collection of articles. Moore has done an excellent job of finding articles to provide a fair and balanced look at a variety of complicated and far-reaching topics. Further, the work has breadth and depth. Moore is careful to include enough historical articles, like the 1890 Warren article, to give balance and perspective to new and modern topics like E-mail surveillance, biopiracy, and genetics. This provides a reader with just enough philosophy and history theory to work with the material. The articles are written by a variety of authors from differing fields so they range in length, tone, and style, creating a rich tapestry of ideas and arguments. However, this is not a quick or easy read. The subject matter is complex and one should plan to spend time with the book. The book is well worth the effort though. Overall, this is a highly recommended work for all libraries especially academic ones."
-
Budd, J.M.: Information, analysis, and ideology : a case study of science and the public interest (2007)
0.00
0.0018186709 = product of:
0.02546139 = sum of:
0.02546139 = weight(_text_:subject in 1328) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02546139 = score(doc=1328,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.23709705 = fieldWeight in 1328, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1328)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- Abstract
- The politicization of science is not a new phenomenon, but the disputes surrounding global climate change have been particularly subject to ideological positioning. The work conducted by researchers on the description of, and possible causes for, climate change is reflected in the formal record of scientific discourse. The political and ideological claims about climate change are themselves reflected in the governmental and popular records. With regard to the particular work by Michael Mann and his colleagues, the three records (scientific, governmental, and popular) collide. Close examination of the totality of the record demonstrates the background, nature, and bases of claims made on all sides. The examination further demonstrates that the governmental and popular records are informed not by scientific research and communication but by ideological stances.
-
Frohmann, B.: Subjectivity and information ethics (2008)
0.00
0.0017146593 = product of:
0.024005229 = sum of:
0.024005229 = weight(_text_:subject in 1360) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024005229 = score(doc=1360,freq=4.0), product of:
0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.22353725 = fieldWeight in 1360, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1360)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- 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.]
-
Seadle, M.: Copyright in a networked world : ethics and infringement (2004)
0.00
0.0011622861 = product of:
0.016272005 = sum of:
0.016272005 = product of:
0.03254401 = sum of:
0.03254401 = weight(_text_:22 in 2833) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03254401 = score(doc=2833,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2833, 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=2833)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- Source
- Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.106-110
-
Hammwöhner, R.: Anmerkungen zur Grundlegung der Informationsethik (2006)
0.00
0.0011622861 = product of:
0.016272005 = sum of:
0.016272005 = product of:
0.03254401 = sum of:
0.03254401 = weight(_text_:22 in 6063) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03254401 = score(doc=6063,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 6063, 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=6063)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- Date
- 13.10.2006 10:22:03
-
Lengauer, E.: Analytische Rechtsethik im Kontext säkularer Begründungsdiskurse zur Würde biologischer Entitäten (2008)
0.00
0.0010170004 = product of:
0.014238005 = sum of:
0.014238005 = product of:
0.02847601 = sum of:
0.02847601 = weight(_text_:22 in 1697) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02847601 = score(doc=1697,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1697, 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=1697)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- Date
- 17. 3.2008 15:17:22
-
Reed, G.M.; Sanders, J.W.: ¬The principle of distribution (2008)
0.00
7.264289E-4 = product of:
0.010170003 = sum of:
0.010170003 = product of:
0.020340007 = sum of:
0.020340007 = weight(_text_:22 in 1868) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020340007 = score(doc=1868,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- Date
- 1. 6.2008 12:22:41
-
"Code of Ethics" verabschiedet (2007)
0.00
5.085002E-4 = product of:
0.0071190023 = sum of:
0.0071190023 = product of:
0.014238005 = sum of:
0.014238005 = weight(_text_:22 in 459) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014238005 = score(doc=459,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = 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)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- 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.
-
"Code of Ethics" verabschiedet (2007)
0.00
4.3585728E-4 = product of:
0.0061020018 = sum of:
0.0061020018 = product of:
0.0122040035 = sum of:
0.0122040035 = weight(_text_:22 in 462) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0122040035 = score(doc=462,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = 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)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- 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.
