Search (101 results, page 1 of 6)

0.00803645 = product of:
  0.037503432 = sum of:
    0.02328653 = weight(_text_:system in 1868) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02328653 = score(doc=1868,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.07727166 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.30135927 = fieldWeight in 1868, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1868)
    0.005906798 = weight(_text_:information in 1868) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005906798 = score(doc=1868,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 1868, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1868)
    0.008310104 = product of:
      0.016620208 = sum of:
        0.016620208 = weight(_text_:22 in 1868) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016620208 = score(doc=1868,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.085914485 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = 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)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

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

Footnote

Beitrag innerhalb eines Themenschwerpunkts: Perspectives on global information ethics

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.7, S.1134-1142

0.0066257464 = product of:
  0.04638022 = sum of:
    0.03802675 = weight(_text_:system in 7334) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03802675 = score(doc=7334,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07727166 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.49211764 = fieldWeight in 7334, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=7334)
    0.008353474 = weight(_text_:information in 7334) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008353474 = score(doc=7334,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 7334, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=7334)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

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

0.0053953147 = product of:
  0.025178134 = sum of:
    0.0095066875 = weight(_text_:system in 2392) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0095066875 = score(doc=2392,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07727166 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.12302941 = fieldWeight in 2392, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2392)
    0.0097953165 = weight(_text_:information in 2392) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0097953165 = score(doc=2392,freq=44.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.2274321 = fieldWeight in 2392, product of:
          6.6332498 = tf(freq=44.0), with freq of:
            44.0 = termFreq=44.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2392)
    0.0058761304 = product of:
      0.011752261 = sum of:
        0.011752261 = weight(_text_:22 in 2392) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011752261 = score(doc=2392,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.085914485 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = 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)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

BK

06.00 / Information und Dokumentation: Allgemeines

Classification

323.44/5 22 (GBV;LoC)
06.00 / Information und Dokumentation: Allgemeines

DDC

323.44/5 22 (GBV;LoC)

Footnote

Rez. in: JASIST 58(2007) no.2, S.302 (L.A. Ennis):"This is an important and timely anthology of articles "on the normative issues surrounding information control" (p. 11). Using an interdisciplinary approach, Moore's work takes a broad look at the relatively new field of information ethics. Covering a variety of disciplines including applied ethics, intellectual property, privacy, free speech, and more, the book provides information professionals of all kinds with a valuable and thought-provoking resource. Information Ethics is divided into five parts and twenty chapters or articles. At the end of each of the five parts, the editor has included a few "discussion cases," which allows the users to apply what they just read to potential real life examples. Part I, "An Ethical Framework for Analysis," provides readers with an introduction to reasoning and ethics. This complex and philosophical section of the book contains five articles and four discussion cases. All five of the articles are really thought provoking and challenging writings on morality. For instance, in the first article, "Introduction to Moral Reasoning," Tom Regan examines how not to answer a moral question. For example, he thinks using what the majority believes as a means of determining what is and is not moral is flawed. "The Metaphysics of Morals" by Immanuel Kant looks at the reasons behind actions. According to Kant, to be moral one has to do the right thing for the right reasons. By including materials that force the reader to think more broadly and deeply about what is right and wrong, Moore has provided an important foundation and backdrop for the rest of the book. Part II, "Intellectual Property: Moral and Legal Concerns," contains five articles and three discussion cases for tackling issues like ownership, patents, copyright, and biopiracy. This section takes a probing look at intellectual and intangible property from a variety of viewpoints. For instance, in "Intellectual Property is Still Property," Judge Frank Easterbrook argues that intellectual property is no different than physical property and should not be treated any differently by law. Tom Palmer's article, "Are Patents and Copyrights Morally Justified," however, uses historical examples to show how intellectual and physical properties differ.
Part III, "Privacy and Information Control," has four articles and three discussion cases beginning with an 1890 article from the Harvard Law Review, "The Right to Privacy," written by Samuel A Warren and Louis D. Brandeis. Moore then includes an article debating whether people own their genes, an article on caller I.D., and an article on computer surveillance. While all four articles pose some very interesting questions, Margaret Everett's article "The Social Life of Genes: Privacy, Property, and the New Genetics" is incredible. She does a great job of demonstrating how advances in genetics have led to increased concerns over ownership and privacy of genetic codes. For instance, if someone's genetic code predisposes them to a deadly disease, should insurance companies have access to that information? Part IV, "Freedom of Speech and Information Control," has three articles and two discussion cases that examine speech and photography issues. Moore begins this section with Kent Greenawalt's "Rationales for Freedom of Speech," which looks at a number of arguments favoring free speech. Then the notion of free speech is carried over into the digital world in "Digital Speech and Democratic Culture: A Theory of Freedom of Expression for the Information Society" by Jack M. Balkin. At 59 pages, this is the work's longest article and demonstrates how complex the digital environment has made freedom of speech issues. Finally, Part V, "Governmental and Societal Control of Information," contains three articles and three discussion cases which provide an excellent view into the conflict between security and privacy. For instance, the first article, "Carnivore, the FBI's E-mail Surveillance System: Devouring Criminals, Not Privacy" by Griffin S. Durham, examines the FBI's e-mail surveillance program called Carnivore. Durham does an excellent job of demonstrating that Carnivore is a necessary and legitimate system used in limited circumstances and with a court order. Librarians will find the final article in the book, National Security at What Price? A Look into Civil Liberty Concerns in the Information Age under the USA Patriot Act by Jacob R. Lilly, of particular interest. In this article, Lilly uses historical examples of events that sacrificed civil liberties for national security such as the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II and the McCarthyism of the Cold War era to examine the PATRIOT Act.
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."

LCSH

Freedom of information
Information society
Information technology / Social aspects

Subject

Freedom of information
Information society
Information technology / Social aspects

0.0047265845 = product of:
  0.03308609 = sum of:
    0.021511177 = weight(_text_:system in 8156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021511177 = score(doc=8156,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07727166 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.27838376 = fieldWeight in 8156, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=8156)
    0.011574914 = weight(_text_:information in 8156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011574914 = score(doc=8156,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.2687516 = fieldWeight in 8156, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=8156)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

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

0.004085061 = product of:
  0.028595427 = sum of:
    0.014564779 = weight(_text_:information in 5876) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014564779 = score(doc=5876,freq=38.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.33817163 = fieldWeight in 5876, product of:
          6.164414 = tf(freq=38.0), with freq of:
            38.0 = termFreq=38.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5876)
    0.014030648 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5876) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014030648 = score(doc=5876,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07421378 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.18905719 = fieldWeight in 5876, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, 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.

0.004058633 = product of:
  0.028410431 = sum of:
    0.016133383 = weight(_text_:system in 424) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016133383 = score(doc=424,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07727166 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.20878783 = fieldWeight in 424, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=424)
    0.012277049 = weight(_text_:information in 424) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012277049 = score(doc=424,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.2850541 = fieldWeight in 424, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=424)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

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.

0.0040277084 = product of:
  0.028193956 = sum of:
    0.021511177 = weight(_text_:system in 2457) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021511177 = score(doc=2457,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07727166 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.27838376 = fieldWeight in 2457, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2457)
    0.006682779 = weight(_text_:information in 2457) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006682779 = score(doc=2457,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 2457, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2457)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

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

0.0036824432 = product of:
  0.025777102 = sum of:
    0.015210699 = weight(_text_:system in 2451) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015210699 = score(doc=2451,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07727166 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.19684705 = fieldWeight in 2451, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2451)
    0.010566402 = weight(_text_:information in 2451) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010566402 = score(doc=2451,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.2453355 = fieldWeight in 2451, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2451)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

This volume examines 3 critical debates of the post-industrial society: culture and technology, information society, and postmodernism. It aims to provide theoretical and methodological underpinnings for the analysis and design of information, communication and multimedia technologies. It is a thoroughly interdisciplinara volume, which will be of interest to students, researchers and practitioners in a wide area of disciplines including information and communication systems, education and social sciences

Content

Enthält die Beiträge: COOLEY, M.: Visions and problems of the post-industrial society; GILL, K.S.: Knowledge and the post-industrial society; LYTJE, I.: Media and the cultural condition: language and education; WHISTON, T.: Knowledge and sustainable development: towards the furtherance of a global communication system; SHIPLEY, P.: The keyboard blues: modern technology and the rights and risks of people at work; LEAL, F.: Ethics is fragile, goodness is not; HIROSE, L.M.: Organisational spaces and intelligent machines: a metaphorical approach to ethics; THORPE, J.: Information system design: human centres approaches; BESSELAAR, P. van den u. T. MOM: Technological change, social innovation and employment; JONES, M.: Empowerment and enslavement: business process reeingineering and the transformation of work; LEVY, P.: The role of creativity in post-industrial society: exploring the implications of non-conventional technologies for work and management organisation; JANSEN, A.: The global information society and rural economics; DAY, P.: Information communication technology and society: a community-based approach; CYSNE, F.P.: Technology transfer and development; COOPER, J.: Information, knowledge and empowerment: the role of information in rural development; CLAY, J.: Participative citizenry in the information ages: the role of science and technology towards democratic education in a multicultural society; TAYLOR, J.: New media and cultural representation; BLACK, M.T.: Consensus and authenticity in representations: simulation as participative theatre; GORAYSKA, B. u. J.L. MEY: Cognitive technology; BOYNE, C.W.: Electronic mail, IT productivity and workplace culture; Squires, P.: Deadly technology in the post-industrial society: a case study of firearms and firearms control; COLE, M. u. D. HILL: Resitance postmodernism: emancipatory politics for a new era or academic chic for a defeatist intelligentsia?; McFEE, G.: Postmodernism, dance and post-industrial society; MULLER, R.C.: Creativity constellation for innovation and cooperation

0.0035530115 = product of:
  0.02487108 = sum of:
    0.011574914 = weight(_text_:information in 3027) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011574914 = score(doc=3027,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.2687516 = fieldWeight in 3027, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3027)
    0.0132961655 = product of:
      0.026592331 = sum of:
        0.026592331 = weight(_text_:22 in 3027) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026592331 = score(doc=3027,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.085914485 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

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

0.003317363 = product of:
  0.023221541 = sum of:
    0.016133383 = weight(_text_:system in 3548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016133383 = score(doc=3548,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07727166 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.20878783 = fieldWeight in 3548, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3548)
    0.0070881573 = weight(_text_:information in 3548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0070881573 = score(doc=3548,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 3548, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3548)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

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.

0.0033156392 = product of:
  0.023209473 = sum of:
    0.0058474317 = weight(_text_:information in 1698) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0058474317 = score(doc=1698,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 1698, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1698)
    0.017362041 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1698) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017362041 = score(doc=1698,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07421378 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 1698, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1698)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

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

0.0032495777 = product of:
  0.022747044 = sum of:
    0.009450877 = weight(_text_:information in 6063) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009450877 = score(doc=6063,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 6063, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6063)
    0.0132961655 = product of:
      0.026592331 = sum of:
        0.026592331 = weight(_text_:22 in 6063) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026592331 = score(doc=6063,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.085914485 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

In diesem Beitrag werden verschiedene Aspekte einer Begründung einer Informationsethik betrachtet. Zunächst wird eine sinnvolle Abgrenzung zu konkurrierenden Ethiken - Netz- und Medienethik - gesucht. Aus Sicht der Generierung, Distribution und Bewahrung von Information wird die Informationsethik als umfassender und allgemeiner als die anderen angesehen. Weiterhin wird die Option einer diskursethischen und damit absoluten Begründung der Informationsethik diskutiert und zugunsten einer pragmatistischen Sichtweise zurückgewiesen.

Date

13.10.2006 10:22:03

Source

Information und Sprache: Beiträge zu Informationswissenschaft, Computerlinguistik, Bibliothekswesen und verwandten Fächern. Festschrift für Harald H. Zimmermann. Herausgegeben von Ilse Harms, Heinz-Dirk Luckhardt und Hans W. Giessen

0.0028541351 = product of:
  0.019978944 = sum of:
    0.006682779 = weight(_text_:information in 248) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006682779 = score(doc=248,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 248, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=248)
    0.0132961655 = product of:
      0.026592331 = sum of:
        0.026592331 = weight(_text_:22 in 248) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026592331 = score(doc=248,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.085914485 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 248, 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=248)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Date

22. 2.1999 15:50:50

Source

Journal of information ethics. 7(1998) no.1, S.15-23

0.0027644692 = product of:
  0.019351283 = sum of:
    0.013444485 = weight(_text_:system in 2765) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013444485 = score(doc=2765,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07727166 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.17398985 = fieldWeight in 2765, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2765)
    0.005906798 = weight(_text_:information in 2765) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005906798 = score(doc=2765,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 2765, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, 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.

0.0027644692 = product of:
  0.019351283 = sum of:
    0.013444485 = weight(_text_:system in 1136) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013444485 = score(doc=1136,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07727166 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.17398985 = fieldWeight in 1136, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1136)
    0.005906798 = weight(_text_:information in 1136) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005906798 = score(doc=1136,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 1136, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1136)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

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.

0.0024973683 = product of:
  0.017481577 = sum of:
    0.0058474317 = weight(_text_:information in 2453) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0058474317 = score(doc=2453,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 2453, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2453)
    0.011634145 = product of:
      0.02326829 = sum of:
        0.02326829 = weight(_text_:22 in 2453) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02326829 = score(doc=2453,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.085914485 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2453, 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=2453)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

An awareness exists among Italian librarians of the need for an established code of ethics for library reference services. Considers the principles that such a code should incorporate; the US Commitment to Information services, for example, affirms users' rights of access to library books and resources, regardless of content and opinions expressed. Censoship is opposed and people are not barred from library use for ethnis, social or religious reasons. An ethical code would require library staff to be impartial, give attention and respect to users, allocate time properly, and avoid prejudice. Discusses the problems of library ethics which arise when user requests relate to sensitive topics e.g. euthansia, cocaine refining

Date

6. 4.1996 13:22:31

0.0020309861 = product of:
  0.014216902 = sum of:
    0.005906798 = weight(_text_:information in 420) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005906798 = score(doc=420,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 420, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=420)
    0.008310104 = product of:
      0.016620208 = sum of:
        0.016620208 = weight(_text_:22 in 420) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016620208 = score(doc=420,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.085914485 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 420, 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=420)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

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_f.pdf.

Date

27. 9.2012 14:22:00

0.0017649572 = product of:
  0.0123547 = sum of:
    0.0065376274 = weight(_text_:information in 459) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0065376274 = score(doc=459,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.1517936 = fieldWeight in 459, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=459)
    0.0058170725 = product of:
      0.011634145 = sum of:
        0.011634145 = weight(_text_:22 in 459) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011634145 = score(doc=459,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.085914485 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

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.

Content

"Ethik und Information - Ethische Grundsätze der Bibliotheks- und Informationsberufe (Stand: 15.3.2007) Bibliothek und Information Deutschland (BID e.V.) ist die Dachorganisation der Bibliotheks- und Informationsverbände in Deutschland. Die in den Mitgliedsverbänden der BID organisierten Beschäftigten in den Bibliotheks- und Informationsberufen richten ihre professionellen Aktivitäten nach ethischen Grundsätzen aus, die Verhaltensstandards bewirken, die Bestandteil des beruflichen Selbstverständnisses werden sollen. Die Beschäftigten in den Bibliotheks- und Informationsberufen engagieren sich nicht beruflich in Organisationen, deren Tätigkeit oder Ziele diesen ethischen Grundsätzen entgegenstehen. Die BID und ihre Mitgliedsverbände und Mitgliedsorganisationen setzen sich im beruflichen Umfeld für das Arbeiten nach diesen ethischen Grundsätzen ein. Das geschieht unter anderem durch laufende Information, durch berufliche Aus- und Fortbildung, durch Kooperation mit verwandten Organisationen und durch die Reaktion in der Öffentlichkeit auf bekannt werdende Verstöße gegen diese Grundsätze. Die Mitglieder der BID machen diese ethischen Grundsätze der Bibliotheks- und Informationsberufe im Berufsstand und in der allgemeinen Öffentlichkeit bekannt.

0.0016297178 = product of:
  0.022816047 = sum of:
    0.022816047 = weight(_text_:system in 5237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022816047 = score(doc=5237,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07727166 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.29527056 = fieldWeight in 5237, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5237)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

RSWK

Mensch-Maschine-System

Subject

Mensch-Maschine-System

0.0015128205 = product of:
  0.010589743 = sum of:
    0.005603681 = weight(_text_:information in 462) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005603681 = score(doc=462,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.1301088 = fieldWeight in 462, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=462)
    0.004986062 = product of:
      0.009972124 = sum of:
        0.009972124 = weight(_text_:22 in 462) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009972124 = score(doc=462,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.085914485 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02453417 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

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.

Content

"Ethik und Information - Ethische Grundsätze der Bibliotheks- und Informationsberufe (Stand: 15.3.2007) Bibliothek und Information Deutschland (BID e.V.) ist die Dachorganisation der Bibliotheks- und Informationsverbände in Deutschland. Die in den Mitgliedsverbänden der BID organisierten Beschäftigten in den Bibliotheks- und Informationsberufen richten ihre professionellen Aktivitäten nach ethischen Grundsätzen aus, die Verhaltensstandards bewirken, die Bestandteil des beruflichen Selbstverständnisses werden sollen. Die Beschäftigten in den Bibliotheks- und Informationsberufen engagieren sich nicht beruflich in Organisationen, deren Tätigkeit oder Ziele diesen ethischen Grundsätzen entgegenstehen. Die BID und ihre Mitgliedsverbände und Mitgliedsorganisationen setzen sich im beruflichen Umfeld für das Arbeiten nach diesen ethischen Grundsätzen ein. Das geschieht unter anderem durch laufende Information, durch berufliche Aus- und Fortbildung, durch Kooperation mit verwandten Organisationen und durch die Reaktion in der Öffentlichkeit auf bekannt werdende Verstöße gegen diese Grundsätze. Die Mitglieder der BID machen diese ethischen Grundsätze der Bibliotheks- und Informationsberufe im Berufsstand und in der allgemeinen Öffentlichkeit bekannt.