Search (113 results, page 1 of 6)

  • × theme_ss:"Informationsethik"
  1. Reed, G.M.; Sanders, J.W.: ¬The principle of distribution (2008) 0.08 
    0.07880683 = product of:
  0.14185229 = sum of:
    0.041947264 = weight(_text_:applications in 1868) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041947264 = score(doc=1868,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17247584 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2432066 = fieldWeight in 1868, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1868)
    0.023667734 = weight(_text_:of in 1868) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023667734 = score(doc=1868,freq=40.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.38633084 = fieldWeight in 1868, product of:
          6.3245554 = tf(freq=40.0), with freq of:
            40.0 = termFreq=40.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1868)
    0.02890629 = weight(_text_:systems in 1868) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02890629 = score(doc=1868,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.24009174 = fieldWeight in 1868, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1868)
    0.034061253 = weight(_text_:software in 1868) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034061253 = score(doc=1868,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15541996 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.21915624 = fieldWeight in 1868, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1868)
    0.013269759 = product of:
      0.026539518 = sum of:
        0.026539518 = weight(_text_:22 in 1868) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026539518 = score(doc=1868,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13719016 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = 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)
  0.5555556 = coord(5/9)
    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
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.7, S.1134-1142
  2. Frohmann, B.: Subjectivity and information ethics (2008) 0.02 
    0.019999452 = product of:
  0.059998356 = sum of:
    0.016397487 = weight(_text_:of in 1360) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016397487 = score(doc=1360,freq=30.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.26765788 = fieldWeight in 1360, product of:
          5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
            30.0 = termFreq=30.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1360)
    0.016351866 = weight(_text_:systems in 1360) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016351866 = score(doc=1360,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.1358164 = fieldWeight in 1360, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1360)
    0.027249003 = weight(_text_:software in 1360) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027249003 = score(doc=1360,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15541996 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.17532499 = fieldWeight in 1360, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1360)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
    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.]
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.2, S.267-277
  3. Beghtol, C.: ¬A proposed ethical warrant for global knowledge representation and organization systems (2002) 0.02 
    0.019309778 = product of:
  0.086894 = sum of:
    0.021999538 = weight(_text_:of in 4462) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021999538 = score(doc=4462,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.3591007 = fieldWeight in 4462, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4462)
    0.06489446 = weight(_text_:systems in 4462) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06489446 = score(doc=4462,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.5390046 = fieldWeight in 4462, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4462)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    New technologies have made the increased globalization of information resources and services possible. In this situation, it is ethically and intellectually beneficial to protect cultural and information diversity. This paper analyzes the problems of creating ethically based globally accessible and culturally acceptable knowledge representation and organization systems, and foundation principles for the ethical treatment of different cultures are established on the basis of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). The concept of "cultural hospitality", which can act as a theoretical framework for the ethical warrant of knowledge representation and organization systems, is described. This broad discussion is grounded with an extended example of one cultural universal, the concept of time and its expression in calendars. Methods of achieving cultural and user hospitality in information systems are discussed for their potential for creating ethically based systems. It is concluded that cultural hospitality is a promising concept for assessing the ethical foundations of new knowledge representation and organization systems and for planning revisions to existing systems.
    Source
    Journal of documentation. 58(2002) no.5, S.507-532
  4. Weckert, J.; Ferguson, S.: Ethics, reference librarians and expert systems (1993) 0.02 
    0.016795272 = product of:
  0.07557872 = sum of:
    0.018934188 = weight(_text_:of in 8156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018934188 = score(doc=8156,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.3090647 = fieldWeight in 8156, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=8156)
    0.05664453 = weight(_text_:systems in 8156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05664453 = score(doc=8156,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.4704818 = fieldWeight in 8156, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=8156)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    The issue of whether or not a librarian should attempt to answer all requests for information, regardless of the use to which the information may be put, is a vexed one. This paper discusses the issue in the context of expert systems in reference work, and suggests that the need for the reference librarian to use discretion has implications for expert system development. It examines the role of the reference librarian, discusses the cases for and against answering all requests for information, outlines the behaviour of expert systems in reference, and discusses possible problems and solutions
  5. Alfino, M.: Information ethics in the workplace : do expert systems have a moral cost? (1993) 0.02 
    0.016351063 = product of:
  0.07357978 = sum of:
    0.016935252 = weight(_text_:of in 8571) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016935252 = score(doc=8571,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.27643585 = fieldWeight in 8571, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=8571)
    0.05664453 = weight(_text_:systems in 8571) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05664453 = score(doc=8571,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.4704818 = fieldWeight in 8571, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=8571)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    Criticises the arguments of Danial Dennett: that technology can pose a significant moral threat to people; with specific reference to expert systems. Refutes Dennett's arguments that expert systems pose a particular threat to people's ability to enjoy the life by removing important elements of personal judgement which are the subject of specific human virtues and make life interesting
    Source
    Journal of information ethics. 2(1993) no.2, S.15-19
  6. Zwass, V.: Ethical issues in information systems (1996) 0.02 
    0.016011083 = product of:
  0.07204988 = sum of:
    0.014818345 = weight(_text_:of in 6847) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014818345 = score(doc=6847,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.24188137 = fieldWeight in 6847, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6847)
    0.057231534 = weight(_text_:systems in 6847) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057231534 = score(doc=6847,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.47535738 = fieldWeight in 6847, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6847)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Source
    Encyclopedia of library and information science. Vol.57, [=Suppl.20]
  7. Zwass, V.: Ethical issues in information systems (2009) 0.01 
    0.014695861 = product of:
  0.066131376 = sum of:
    0.016567415 = weight(_text_:of in 3779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016567415 = score(doc=3779,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2704316 = fieldWeight in 3779, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3779)
    0.049563963 = weight(_text_:systems in 3779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049563963 = score(doc=3779,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.41167158 = fieldWeight in 3779, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3779)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    Information technology and information systems built around its artifacts can have powerful effects on individuals, both in their private life and in the workplace. As professionals and users, we should use ethical principles and codes of ethics to avoid and prevent deleterious effects of technology. Infoethics is the application of ethical theories to the development and use of information systems. The principal infoethical issues are privacy, accuracy, property (in particular, the intangible intellectual property), and access. Ethical decisions in the information-related domains are made by identifying the issues involved and applying ethical theories-classified as consequentalist and deontological-in the decision-making process.
    Source
    Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed.: M.J. Bates
  8. Tenopir, C.: Ethics for online educators (1992) 0.01 
    0.014343868 = product of:
  0.064547405 = sum of:
    0.023667734 = weight(_text_:of in 7334) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023667734 = score(doc=7334,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.38633084 = fieldWeight in 7334, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=7334)
    0.040879667 = weight(_text_:systems in 7334) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040879667 = score(doc=7334,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.339541 = fieldWeight in 7334, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=7334)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    The only monitoring of educators is performed by their internal sense of right and wrong. Following the aggred terms of system contracts, selecting the most appropriate systems for students, keeping up to date with system features, and instilling ethical behaviour in students are at the core of ethics for online educators
    Source
    Journal of information ethics. 1(1992), S.32-40
  9. Rubel, A.; Castro, C.; Pham, A.: Algorithms and autonomy : the ethics of automated decision systems (2021) 0.01 
    0.013755783 = product of:
  0.061901025 = sum of:
    0.011833867 = weight(_text_:of in 671) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011833867 = score(doc=671,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.19316542 = fieldWeight in 671, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=671)
    0.050067157 = weight(_text_:systems in 671) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050067157 = score(doc=671,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.41585106 = fieldWeight in 671, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=671)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    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
    LCSH
    Decision support systems / Moral and ethical aspects
    Expert systems (Computer science) / Moral and ethical aspects
    Subject
    Decision support systems / Moral and ethical aspects
    Expert systems (Computer science) / Moral and ethical aspects
  10. Clay, J.: Participative citizenry in the information age : the role of science and technolgy towards democratic education in a multicultural society (1996) 0.01 
    0.013723786 = product of:
  0.061757036 = sum of:
    0.012701439 = weight(_text_:of in 2450) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012701439 = score(doc=2450,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 2450, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2450)
    0.0490556 = weight(_text_:systems in 2450) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0490556 = score(doc=2450,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.4074492 = fieldWeight in 2450, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2450)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Series
    Human-centred systems
  11. Neumaier, O.: Was hat 'Künstliche Intelligenz' mit Ethik zu tun? (1994) 0.01 
    0.01293891 = product of:
  0.058225095 = sum of:
    0.011975031 = weight(_text_:of in 2456) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011975031 = score(doc=2456,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.19546966 = fieldWeight in 2456, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2456)
    0.046250064 = weight(_text_:systems in 2456) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046250064 = score(doc=2456,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.38414678 = fieldWeight in 2456, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2456)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    The relevance of ethical considerations for AI is discussed in 2 respects: on the one hand with regard to the consequences one has to cope with when dealing with computer systems that are considered 'intelligent' and, on the other hand had with questions of responsibility which arises when such systems are used. In what sense has Artificial Intelligence to deal with ethics?
  12. Weber, K.: Ethikcodizes für die Wissensorganisation (2008) 0.01 
    0.012124025 = product of:
  0.054558113 = sum of:
    0.02049686 = weight(_text_:of in 1699) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02049686 = score(doc=1699,freq=30.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.33457235 = fieldWeight in 1699, product of:
          5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
            30.0 = termFreq=30.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1699)
    0.034061253 = weight(_text_:software in 1699) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034061253 = score(doc=1699,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15541996 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.21915624 = fieldWeight in 1699, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1699)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    In the past, many professions and scientific disciplines decided to create a code of ethics which shall guide the professional activities of their members. The rules in these codes of ethics, sometimes called ethical guidelines, shall provide guidance in situations of moral conflict. Obviously, as other professionals or scholars, persons who are involved in knowledge organization face moral conflicts, too. Therefore, ISKO decided to discuss whether it would be necessary to create ethical guidelines for ISKO. In the paper two options to formulate a code of ethics are discussed: First, it is possible to identify moral values without formulating the way they can be achieved - this option is realised in the ethical guidelines of the German Gesellschaft für Informatik (GI). Second, it is feasible to clearly define morally acceptable professional actions without formulation basic moral values - this option is realised in the ACM and IEEE-CS Software Engineering Code of Ethics and Professional Practice. It is argued that if ISKO should decide to implement an own code of ethics it will be inevitable to choose the second option while it also will be necessary to address the specific needs of knowledge organization and its moral problems, for instance, the conflict of copyright and open access. Additionally, the second option has to be completed by basic moral values that shall underlie the professional actions of knowledge organization.
    Source
    Kompatibilität, Medien und Ethik in der Wissensorganisation - Compatibility, Media and Ethics in Knowledge Organization: Proceedings der 10. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation Wien, 3.-5. Juli 2006 - Proceedings of the 10th Conference of the German Section of the International Society of Knowledge Organization Vienna, 3-5 July 2006. Ed.: H.P. Ohly, S. Netscher u. K. Mitgutsch
  13. Tran, Q.-T.: Standardization and the neglect of museum objects : an infrastructure-based approach for inclusive integration of cultural artifacts (2023) 0.01 
    0.011272636 = product of:
  0.05072686 = sum of:
    0.021820573 = weight(_text_:of in 1136) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021820573 = score(doc=1136,freq=34.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.35617945 = fieldWeight in 1136, product of:
          5.8309517 = tf(freq=34.0), with freq of:
            34.0 = termFreq=34.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1136)
    0.02890629 = weight(_text_:systems in 1136) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02890629 = score(doc=1136,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.24009174 = fieldWeight in 1136, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1136)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    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.
    Footnote
    Beitrag eines Themenheftes: 4th International Conference on the Ethics of Information and Knowledge Organization, June 8-9, University of Lille, France.
  14. Zhang, J.: Archival context, digital content, and the ethics of digital archival representation : the ethics of identification in digital library metadata (2012) 0.01 
    0.011127857 = product of:
  0.050075352 = sum of:
    0.021169065 = weight(_text_:of in 419) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021169065 = score(doc=419,freq=32.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.34554482 = fieldWeight in 419, product of:
          5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
            32.0 = termFreq=32.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=419)
    0.02890629 = weight(_text_:systems in 419) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02890629 = score(doc=419,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.24009174 = fieldWeight in 419, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=419)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    The findings of a recent study on digital archival representation raise some ethical concerns about how digital archival materials are organized, described, and made available for use on the Web. Archivists have a fundamental obligation to preserve and protect the authenticity and integrity of records in their holdings and, at the same time, have the responsibility to promote the use of records as a fundamental purpose of the keeping of archives (SAA 2005 Code of Ethics for Archivists V & VI). Is it an ethical practice that digital content in digital archives is deeply embedded in its contextual structure and generally underrepresented in digital archival systems? Similarly, is it ethical for archivists to detach digital items from their archival context in order to make them more "digital friendly" and more accessible to meet needs of some users? Do archivists have an obligation to bring the two representation systems together so that the context and content of digital archives can be better represented and archival materials "can be located and used by anyone, for any purpose, while still remaining authentic evidence of the work and life of the creator"? (Millar 2010, 157) This paper discusses the findings of the study and their ethical implications relating to digital archival description and representation.
    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_d.pdf.
  15. Adler, M.; Harper, L.M.: Race and ethnicity in classification systems : teaching knowledge organization from a social justice perspective (2018) 0.01 
    0.010526687 = product of:
  0.04737009 = sum of:
    0.014666359 = weight(_text_:of in 5518) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014666359 = score(doc=5518,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.23940048 = fieldWeight in 5518, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5518)
    0.03270373 = weight(_text_:systems in 5518) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03270373 = score(doc=5518,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2716328 = fieldWeight in 5518, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5518)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    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.
  16. Fox, M.J.; Reece, A.: Which ethics? Whose morality? : an analysis of ethical standards for information organization (2012) 0.01 
    0.010339408 = product of:
  0.046527337 = sum of:
    0.021999538 = weight(_text_:of in 424) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021999538 = score(doc=424,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.3591007 = fieldWeight in 424, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=424)
    0.0245278 = weight(_text_:systems in 424) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0245278 = score(doc=424,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2037246 = fieldWeight in 424, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=424)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    Ethical standards are required at both the individual and system levels of the information organization enterprise, but are those standards the same? For example, are the ethical responsibilities of DDC's editorial board fundamentally the same as for an individual cataloger? And, what are the consequences of decisions made using different ethical frameworks to the users of knowledge organization systems? A selection of ethical theories suitable for evaluating moral dilemmas at all levels in information organization is presented, including utilitarianism, deontology, and pragmatism, as well as the more contemporary approaches of justice, feminist, and Derridean ethics. Finally, a selection of criteria is outlined, taken from the existing ethical frameworks, to use as a starting point for development of an ethical framework specifically for information organization.
    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_j.pdf.
  17. Benedetto, C. di; Leone, L.; Seta, M. Della: Semantic approach to bioethics in the Ethicsweb project : building a semantic architecture for a European documentation system 0.01 
    0.009184495 = product of:
  0.041330226 = sum of:
    0.016802425 = weight(_text_:of in 3548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016802425 = score(doc=3548,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2742677 = fieldWeight in 3548, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3548)
    0.0245278 = weight(_text_:systems in 3548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0245278 = score(doc=3548,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2037246 = fieldWeight in 3548, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3548)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    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.
    Source
    Paradigms and conceptual systems in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the Eleventh International ISKO conference, Rome, 23-26 February 2010, ed. Claudio Gnoli, Indeks, Frankfurt M
  18. Miller, S.: Privacy, data bases and computers (1998) 0.01 
    0.008925734 = product of:
  0.040165804 = sum of:
    0.018934188 = weight(_text_:of in 3027) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018934188 = score(doc=3027,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.3090647 = fieldWeight in 3027, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3027)
    0.021231614 = product of:
      0.042463228 = sum of:
        0.042463228 = weight(_text_:22 in 3027) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042463228 = score(doc=3027,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13719016 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = 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)
    Abstract
    Within the looming threat of the combination of computer databases with monitoring and surveillance devices, attempts to define the notion of privacy and its parameters. Considers the ethical issues posed by databases, touching on disclosure to organizations of matters such as personal taxation and financial information or security surveillance. Highlights the increasing information imbalance between persons and organizations and suggests ways to improve autonomy
    Date
    22. 2.1999 15:57:43
    Source
    Journal of information ethics. 7(1998) no.1, S.42-48
  19. Slota, S.C.; Fleischmann, K.R.; Greenberg, S.; Verma, N.; Cummings, B.; Li, L.; Shenefiel, C.: Locating the work of artificial intelligence ethics (2023) 0.01 
    0.008907516 = product of:
  0.04008382 = sum of:
    0.015556021 = weight(_text_:of in 899) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015556021 = score(doc=899,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.25392252 = fieldWeight in 899, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=899)
    0.0245278 = weight(_text_:systems in 899) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0245278 = score(doc=899,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2037246 = fieldWeight in 899, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=899)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    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.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.3, S.311-322
  20. Van der Walt, M.S.: Ethics in indexing and clssification (2006) 0.01 
    0.008782783 = product of:
  0.03952252 = sum of:
    0.016397487 = weight(_text_:of in 5876) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016397487 = score(doc=5876,freq=30.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.26765788 = fieldWeight in 5876, product of:
          5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
            30.0 = termFreq=30.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5876)
    0.023125032 = weight(_text_:systems in 5876) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023125032 = score(doc=5876,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.19207339 = fieldWeight in 5876, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5876)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    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.

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 102
  • d 9
  • es 1
  • i 1
  • m 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 101
  • m 9
  • s 6
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications