Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0135006495 = product of:
  0.054002598 = sum of:
    0.02096625 = weight(_text_:web in 420) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02096625 = score(doc=420,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11629491 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035634913 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 420, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=420)
    0.02096625 = weight(_text_:web in 420) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02096625 = score(doc=420,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11629491 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035634913 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 420, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=420)
    0.012070097 = product of:
      0.024140194 = sum of:
        0.024140194 = weight(_text_:22 in 420) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024140194 = score(doc=420,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12478739 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035634913 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(3/12)

Abstract

The conflict between librarians' ethics and their responsibilities in the process of progressive collection management, which applies the principles of cost accounting to libraries, to call attention to the "bad books" in their collections that are compromised by age, error, abridgement, expurgation, plagiarism, copyright violation, libel, or fraud, is discussed. According to Charles Cutter, notes in catalog records should call attention to the best books but ignore the bad ones. Libraries that can afford to keep their "bad books," however, which often have a valuable second life, must call attention to their intellectual contexts in notes in the catalog records. Michael Bellesiles's Arming America, the most famous case of academic fraud at the turn of the twenty-first century, is used as a test case. Given the bias of content enhancement that automatically pulls content from the Web into library catalogs, catalog notes for "bad books" may be the only way for librarians to uphold their ethical principles regarding collection management while fulfilling their professional responsibilities to their users in calling attention to their "bad books."

Date

27. 9.2012 14:22:00

0.0069887503 = product of:
  0.0419325 = sum of:
    0.02096625 = weight(_text_:web in 419) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02096625 = score(doc=419,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11629491 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035634913 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 419, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=419)
    0.02096625 = weight(_text_:web in 419) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02096625 = score(doc=419,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11629491 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035634913 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 419, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=419)
  0.16666667 = coord(2/12)

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.

0.0057179923 = product of:
  0.068615906 = sum of:
    0.068615906 = weight(_text_:tagging in 418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.068615906 = score(doc=418,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21038401 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035634913 = queryNorm
        0.326146 = fieldWeight in 418, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.9038734 = idf(docFreq=327, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=418)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

0.004798494 = product of:
  0.057581924 = sum of:
    0.057581924 = weight(_text_:world in 1065) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057581924 = score(doc=1065,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13696888 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035634913 = queryNorm
        0.4204015 = fieldWeight in 1065, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1065)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

Abstract

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

0.0024236054 = product of:
  0.029083263 = sum of:
    0.029083263 = weight(_text_:world in 3367) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029083263 = score(doc=3367,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13696888 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035634913 = queryNorm
        0.21233483 = fieldWeight in 3367, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3367)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

Abstract

The study of philosophy provides many general benefits to members of any field or discipline, the easiest of which to defend are an appreciation of, and experience with, critical thinking, including the ability to apply principles thoughtfully and logically in a variety of contexts; it is the discipline that, according to Plato, Socrates believed made life worth living. Today, however, most disciplines can lay claim to critical thinking - information science certainly involves a great deal of logical analysis - but only philosophy, in the Western world, can lay claim to having developed logic and critical thinking and thereby may have furthered the process more than any other discipline. Historically, philosophy is also the discipline in which one learns how to think about the most complex and important questions including questions about what is right and proper; that is, philosophy arguably lays claim to the development of ethics. Before going further, I should note that I am neither a philosopher nor an information scientist. I am a social psychologist and statistician whose interests have brought me into the realm of practical ethics primarily through ethical issues relevant to empirical research. I should also note that I am firmly in the camp of those who consider there to be an important distinction between morals and ethics; as do others, I argue that moral judgements essentially involve questions about whether or not rules, defined broadly, are followed, whereas ethical judgements essentially involve questions about whether or not a particular rule is worthwhile and, when there are incompatible rules, which rule should be granted higher priority.

0.0016093462 = product of:
  0.019312155 = sum of:
    0.019312155 = product of:
      0.03862431 = sum of:
        0.03862431 = weight(_text_:22 in 5599) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03862431 = score(doc=5599,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12478739 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035634913 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5599, 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=5599)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

Date

25.12.2019 14:19:22