Search (44 results, page 3 of 3)

0.0032421078 = product of:
  0.009726323 = sum of:
    0.009726323 = product of:
      0.029178968 = sum of:
        0.029178968 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5876) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029178968 = score(doc=5876,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

0.0028845975 = product of:
  0.008653793 = sum of:
    0.008653793 = product of:
      0.025961377 = sum of:
        0.025961377 = weight(_text_:online in 1869) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025961377 = score(doc=1869,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.16765618 = fieldWeight in 1869, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1869)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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)]

0.0028845975 = product of:
  0.008653793 = sum of:
    0.008653793 = product of:
      0.025961377 = sum of:
        0.025961377 = weight(_text_:online in 418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025961377 = score(doc=418,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.16765618 = fieldWeight in 418, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=418)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The purpose of this essay is to demonstrate that the mechanisms of power around classifications of gender and sexuality are not always top-down or bottom-up. Instead, the weight of social discipline among members of sexual subcultures themselves helps to create these classifications, often reflecting the nomenclature of subjects and desires within sexual subcultures in a complex relationship to a dominant culture. Critically examining contemporary folksonomic classifications of representations of queer desire within Xtube, a database of online pornography, this paper reveals that social discipline occurs in the stabilization of nomenclature through socialization and through members' overt intervention into each others' selfunderstanding. The Xtube evidence reveals a complex social and cultural structure among members of sexual subcultures by drawing our attention to the particularity of various modes of sexual being and the relationship between those modes and particular configurations of sexual identity. In the process, this paper allows us to reassess, first, a presupposition of folksonomies as free of discipline allowing for their emancipatory potential and, second, the prevailing binary understandings of authority in the development of sexual nomenclatures and classifications as either top-down or bottom-up.

0.0027156337 = product of:
  0.008146901 = sum of:
    0.008146901 = product of:
      0.0244407 = sum of:
        0.0244407 = weight(_text_:22 in 2392) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0244407 = score(doc=2392,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17867287 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Classification

323.44/5 22 (GBV;LoC)

DDC

323.44/5 22 (GBV;LoC)