Search (34 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × theme_ss:"Informationsethik"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. Hammwöhner, R.: Anmerkungen zur Grundlegung der Informationsethik (2006) 0.03
    0.029427508 = product of:
      0.07356877 = sum of:
        0.005448922 = weight(_text_:a in 6063) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005448922 = score(doc=6063,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 6063, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6063)
        0.06811985 = sum of:
          0.017861681 = weight(_text_:information in 6063) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.017861681 = score(doc=6063,freq=4.0), product of:
              0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046368346 = 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)
          0.050258167 = weight(_text_:22 in 6063) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.050258167 = score(doc=6063,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046368346 = 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)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    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
    Type
    a
  2. Reed, G.M.; Sanders, J.W.: ¬The principle of distribution (2008) 0.02
    0.020634085 = product of:
      0.051585212 = sum of:
        0.009010308 = weight(_text_:a in 1868) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009010308 = score(doc=1868,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 1868, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1868)
        0.042574905 = sum of:
          0.011163551 = weight(_text_:information in 1868) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.011163551 = score(doc=1868,freq=4.0), product of:
              0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046368346 = 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)
          0.031411353 = weight(_text_:22 in 1868) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.031411353 = score(doc=1868,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046368346 = 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)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    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
    Type
    a
  3. Information ethics : privacy, property, and power (2005) 0.02
    0.019828714 = product of:
      0.049571786 = sum of:
        0.008847947 = weight(_text_:a in 2392) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008847947 = score(doc=2392,freq=54.0), product of:
            0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.16549082 = fieldWeight in 2392, product of:
              7.3484693 = tf(freq=54.0), with freq of:
                54.0 = termFreq=54.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2392)
        0.040723838 = sum of:
          0.018512657 = weight(_text_:information in 2392) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.018512657 = score(doc=2392,freq=44.0), product of:
              0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046368346 = 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)
          0.022211181 = weight(_text_:22 in 2392) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.022211181 = score(doc=2392,freq=4.0), product of:
              0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046368346 = 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)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    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
  4. "Code of Ethics" verabschiedet (2007) 0.01
    0.014691055 = product of:
      0.036727637 = sum of:
        0.0023839036 = weight(_text_:a in 459) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0023839036 = score(doc=459,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.044588212 = fieldWeight in 459, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=459)
        0.034343734 = sum of:
          0.012355788 = weight(_text_:information in 459) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.012355788 = score(doc=459,freq=10.0), product of:
              0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046368346 = 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)
          0.021987949 = weight(_text_:22 in 459) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.021987949 = score(doc=459,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046368346 = 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)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    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.
    Type
    a
  5. Seadle, M.: Copyright in a networked world : ethics and infringement (2004) 0.01
    0.013134009 = product of:
      0.03283502 = sum of:
        0.00770594 = weight(_text_:a in 2833) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00770594 = score(doc=2833,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 2833, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2833)
        0.025129084 = product of:
          0.050258167 = sum of:
            0.050258167 = weight(_text_:22 in 2833) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.050258167 = score(doc=2833,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046368346 = queryNorm
                0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2833, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2833)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1, S.106-110
    Type
    a
  6. "Code of Ethics" verabschiedet (2007) 0.01
    0.012592333 = product of:
      0.031480834 = sum of:
        0.002043346 = weight(_text_:a in 462) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.002043346 = score(doc=462,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.03821847 = fieldWeight in 462, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=462)
        0.029437486 = sum of:
          0.010590675 = weight(_text_:information in 462) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.010590675 = score(doc=462,freq=10.0), product of:
              0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046368346 = 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)
          0.018846812 = weight(_text_:22 in 462) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.018846812 = score(doc=462,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046368346 = 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)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    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.
    Type
    a
  7. Lengauer, E.: Analytische Rechtsethik im Kontext säkularer Begründungsdiskurse zur Würde biologischer Entitäten (2008) 0.01
    0.010702303 = product of:
      0.026755756 = sum of:
        0.004767807 = weight(_text_:a in 1697) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.004767807 = score(doc=1697,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 1697, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1697)
        0.021987949 = product of:
          0.043975897 = sum of:
            0.043975897 = weight(_text_:22 in 1697) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.043975897 = score(doc=1697,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16237405 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046368346 = queryNorm
                0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1697, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1697)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    Date
    17. 3.2008 15:17:22
    Type
    a
  8. Brody, R.: ¬The problem of information naïveté (2008) 0.01
    0.010167557 = product of:
      0.02541889 = sum of:
        0.005448922 = weight(_text_:a in 1865) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005448922 = score(doc=1865,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 1865, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1865)
        0.019969968 = product of:
          0.039939936 = sum of:
            0.039939936 = weight(_text_:information in 1865) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.039939936 = score(doc=1865,freq=20.0), product of:
                0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046368346 = queryNorm
                0.490671 = fieldWeight in 1865, product of:
                  4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                    20.0 = termFreq=20.0
                  1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1865)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    Abstract
    With the rapidly changing Web-enabled world, the already existing dichotomy between knowing of and knowing about, or information naïveté, widens daily. This article explores the ethical dilemmas that can result from the lack of information literacy. The article also discusses conditions and consequences of information naïveté, media bias, possessive memory, and limited contexts and abilities. To help avoid information failure, the author recommends producers, contributors, disseminators, and aggregators of information be less information naïve.
    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.1124-1127
    Theme
    Information
    Type
    a
  9. Britz, J.J.: Making the global information society good : A social justice perspective on the ethical dimensions of the global information society (2008) 0.01
    0.009995114 = product of:
      0.024987785 = sum of:
        0.0100103095 = weight(_text_:a in 1870) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0100103095 = score(doc=1870,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 1870, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1870)
        0.014977476 = product of:
          0.029954951 = sum of:
            0.029954951 = weight(_text_:information in 1870) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.029954951 = score(doc=1870,freq=20.0), product of:
                0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046368346 = queryNorm
                0.36800325 = fieldWeight in 1870, product of:
                  4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                    20.0 = termFreq=20.0
                  1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1870)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    Abstract
    This article discusses social justice as a moral norm that can be used to address the ethical challenges facing us in the global Information Society. The global Information Society is seen as a continuation of relationships which have been altered by the use of modern information and communication technologies (ICTs). Four interrelated characteristics of the global Information Society also are identified. After a brief overview of the main socioethical issues facing the global Information Society, the article discusses the application of social justice as a moral tool that has universal moral validity and which can be used to address these ethical challenges. It is illustrated that the scope of justice is no longer limited to domestic issues. Three core principles of justice are furthermore distinguished, and based on these three principles, seven categories of justice are introduced. It is illustrated how these categories of justice can be applied to address the main ethical challenges of the Information Society.
    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.1171-1183
    Type
    a
  10. Capurro, R.: Information ethics for and from Africa (2008) 0.01
    0.009039519 = product of:
      0.022598797 = sum of:
        0.0068111527 = weight(_text_:a in 1869) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0068111527 = score(doc=1869,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 1869, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1869)
        0.015787644 = product of:
          0.03157529 = sum of:
            0.03157529 = weight(_text_:information in 1869) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03157529 = score(doc=1869,freq=32.0), product of:
                0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046368346 = queryNorm
                0.38790947 = fieldWeight in 1869, product of:
                  5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
                    32.0 = termFreq=32.0
                  1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1869)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    Abstract
    The first part of this article deals with some initiatives concerning the role of information ethics for Africa, such as the New Partnership for Africa's Development, United Nations Information Communications Technology (ICT), and the African Information Society Initiative particularly since the World Summit on the Information Society. Information Ethics from Africa is a young academic field, and not much has been published so far on the impact of ICT on African societies and cultures from a philosophical perspective. The second part of the article analyzes some recent research on this matter particularly with regard to the concept of ubuntu. Finally, the article addresses some issues of the African Conference on Information Ethics held February 3-5, 2007, in Pretoria, South Africa.[The following essay is adapted from a keynote address delivered at the Africa Information Ethics Conference in Pretoria, South Africa, February 5-7, 2007. Under the patronage of UNESCO, sponsored by the South African government, and organized with assistance from the Department of Information Science at the University of Pretoria, the School of Information Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, and the supporters and members of the International Center for Information Ethics (ICIE), the theme of the conference was Ethical Challenges in the Information Age: The Joy of Sharing Knowledge. The full version of the address as well as selected articles from the conference were published in Vol. 7 of ICIE's online journal, International Review of Information Ethics (for more information, visit http://icie.zkm.de)]
    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.1162-1170
    Type
    a
  11. Van der Walt, M.S.: Ethics in indexing and clssification (2006) 0.01
    0.008951541 = product of:
      0.022378853 = sum of:
        0.008615503 = weight(_text_:a in 5876) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008615503 = score(doc=5876,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.16114321 = fieldWeight in 5876, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5876)
        0.0137633495 = product of:
          0.027526699 = sum of:
            0.027526699 = weight(_text_:information in 5876) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.027526699 = score(doc=5876,freq=38.0), product of:
                0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046368346 = 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)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    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.
    Type
    a
  12. Himma, K.E.: Foundational issues in information ethics (2007) 0.01
    0.008805771 = product of:
      0.022014428 = sum of:
        0.008341924 = weight(_text_:a in 2591) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008341924 = score(doc=2591,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 2591, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2591)
        0.013672504 = product of:
          0.027345007 = sum of:
            0.027345007 = weight(_text_:information in 2591) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.027345007 = score(doc=2591,freq=24.0), product of:
                0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046368346 = queryNorm
                0.3359395 = fieldWeight in 2591, product of:
                  4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
                    24.0 = termFreq=24.0
                  1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2591)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose - Information ethics, as is well known, has emerged as an independent area of ethical and philosophical inquiry. There are a number of academic journals that are devoted entirely to the numerous ethical issues that arise in connection with the new information communication technologies; these issues include a host of intellectual property, information privacy, and security issues of concern to librarians and other information professionals. In addition, there are a number of major international conferences devoted to information ethics every year. It would hardly be overstating the matter to say that information ethics is as "hot" an area of theoretical inquiry as medical ethics. The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview on these and related issues. Design/methodology/approach - The paper presents a review of relevant information ethics literature together with the author's assessment of the arguments. Findings - There are issues that are more abstract and basic than the substantive issues with which most information ethics theorizing is concerned. These issues are thought to be "foundational" in the sense that we cannot fully succeed in giving an analysis of the concrete problems of information ethics (e.g. are legal intellectual property rights justifiably protected?) until these issues are adequately addressed. Originality/value - The paper offers a needed survey of foundational issues in information ethics.
    Content
    Beitrag in einem Themenheft "Information ethics "
    Type
    a
  13. Carbo, T.; Smith, M.M.: Global information ethics : intercultural perspectives on past and future research (2008) 0.01
    0.008193462 = product of:
      0.020483656 = sum of:
        0.0068111527 = weight(_text_:a in 669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0068111527 = score(doc=669,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 669, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=669)
        0.013672504 = product of:
          0.027345007 = sum of:
            0.027345007 = weight(_text_:information in 669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.027345007 = score(doc=669,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046368346 = queryNorm
                0.3359395 = fieldWeight in 669, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=669)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    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.1111-1123
    Type
    a
  14. Kuhlen, R.: Informationsethik - Die Entwicklung von Normen für den Umgang mit Wissen und Information in elektronischen Räumen (2005) 0.01
    0.007931474 = product of:
      0.019828685 = sum of:
        0.010897844 = weight(_text_:a in 3687) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010897844 = score(doc=3687,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 3687, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3687)
        0.0089308405 = product of:
          0.017861681 = sum of:
            0.017861681 = weight(_text_:information in 3687) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.017861681 = score(doc=3687,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046368346 = queryNorm
                0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 3687, 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=3687)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    Source
    Bibliothekswissenschaft - quo vadis? Eine Disziplin zwischen Traditionen und Visionen: Programme - Modelle - Forschungsaufgaben / Library Science - quo vadis? A Discipline between Challenges and Opportunities: Programs - Models - Research Assignments. Mit einem Geleitwort von / With a Preface by Guy St. Clair Consulting Specialist for Knowledge Management and Learning, New York, NY und einem Vorwort von / and a Foreword by Georg Ruppelt Sprecher von / Speaker of BID - Bibliothek & Information Deutschland Bundesvereinigung Deutscher Bibliotheksund Informationsverbände e.V. Hrsg. von P. Hauke
    Type
    a
  15. Cox, R.J.: Archival ethics : the truth of the matter (2008) 0.01
    0.0073474604 = product of:
      0.01836865 = sum of:
        0.009437811 = weight(_text_:a in 1866) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009437811 = score(doc=1866,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.17652355 = fieldWeight in 1866, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1866)
        0.0089308405 = product of:
          0.017861681 = sum of:
            0.017861681 = weight(_text_:information in 1866) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.017861681 = score(doc=1866,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046368346 = queryNorm
                0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 1866, 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=1866)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    Abstract
    This essay explores the question of whether records professionals are as aware of the ethical dimensions of their work as they should be. It consider first the historical and professional context of archival ethics, then examines a recent case about business archives involving the author that suggests the need for renewed attention to professional ethics, and concludes with a discussion about how archivists might reconsider the ethical dimensions of their work.
    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.1128-1133
    Type
    a
  16. Zwass, V.: Ethical issues in information systems (2009) 0.01
    0.0073211575 = product of:
      0.018302893 = sum of:
        0.004767807 = weight(_text_:a in 3779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.004767807 = score(doc=3779,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 3779, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3779)
        0.013535086 = product of:
          0.027070172 = sum of:
            0.027070172 = weight(_text_:information in 3779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.027070172 = score(doc=3779,freq=12.0), product of:
                0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046368346 = queryNorm
                0.3325631 = fieldWeight in 3779, product of:
                  3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                    12.0 = termFreq=12.0
                  1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3779)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    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
    Type
    a
  17. Frohmann, B.: Subjectivity and information ethics (2008) 0.01
    0.0072316155 = product of:
      0.018079039 = sum of:
        0.005448922 = weight(_text_:a in 1360) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005448922 = score(doc=1360,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 1360, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1360)
        0.012630116 = product of:
          0.025260232 = sum of:
            0.025260232 = weight(_text_:information in 1360) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.025260232 = score(doc=1360,freq=32.0), product of:
                0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046368346 = queryNorm
                0.3103276 = fieldWeight in 1360, product of:
                  5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
                    32.0 = termFreq=32.0
                  1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1360)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    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
    Type
    a
  18. Beghtol, C.: ¬A proposed ethical warrant for global knowledge representation and organization systems (2002) 0.01
    0.006550755 = product of:
      0.016376887 = sum of:
        0.008173384 = weight(_text_:a in 4462) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008173384 = score(doc=4462,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 4462, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4462)
        0.008203502 = product of:
          0.016407004 = sum of:
            0.016407004 = weight(_text_:information in 4462) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.016407004 = score(doc=4462,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046368346 = queryNorm
                0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 4462, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4462)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    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.
    Type
    a
  19. Rubin, R.; Froehlich, T.J.: Ethical aspects of library and information science (2009) 0.01
    0.006548052 = product of:
      0.01637013 = sum of:
        0.005779455 = weight(_text_:a in 3778) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005779455 = score(doc=3778,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 3778, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3778)
        0.010590675 = product of:
          0.02118135 = sum of:
            0.02118135 = weight(_text_:information in 3778) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.02118135 = score(doc=3778,freq=10.0), product of:
                0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046368346 = queryNorm
                0.2602176 = fieldWeight in 3778, product of:
                  3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                    10.0 = termFreq=10.0
                  1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3778)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    Abstract
    This entry discusses many of the ethical considerations in the library and information science professions: collection development, censorship, privacy, reference services, copyright, administrative concerns, information access, technology-related issues, and problems with conflicting loyalties. It surveys the factors that affect ethical deliberations in the information professions: social utility, survival, social responsibility, and respect for individuality. It also looks at professional factors in ethical deliberations, such as professional codes of ethics, and the values that support ethical principles of professional conduct: truth, tolerance, individual liberty, justice and beauty. In the final section, it indicates the kinds of actions to promote ethical conduct at the organizational, professional and individual levels. As a final caveat, it indicates that ethical decisions require deliberation and reflection. While one can articulate values, factors, codes, and actions, they inform ethical reflection that must often confront and negotiate dilemmas and tensions.
    Source
    Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed.: M.J. Bates
    Type
    a
  20. Day, R.E.: Tropes, history, and ethics in professional discourse and information science (2000) 0.01
    0.00652538 = product of:
      0.01631345 = sum of:
        0.0067426977 = weight(_text_:a in 4589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0067426977 = score(doc=4589,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 4589, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4589)
        0.009570752 = product of:
          0.019141505 = sum of:
            0.019141505 = weight(_text_:information in 4589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.019141505 = score(doc=4589,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046368346 = queryNorm
                0.23515764 = fieldWeight in 4589, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4589)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    Abstract
    This article argues that professional discourses tend to align themselves with dominant ideological and social forces by means of language. Tn twentieth century modernity, the use of the trope of 'science' and related terms in professional theory is a common linguistic device through which professions attempt social self-advancement. This article examines how professional discourses, in particular those which are foundational for library and information science theory and practice, establish themselves in culture and project history - past and future - by means of appropriating certain dominant tropes in culture's language. This article suggests that ethical and political choices arise out of the rhetoric and practice of professional discourse, and that these choices cannot be confined to the realm of professional polemics
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 51(2000) no.5, S.469-475
    Type
    a