Some Thoughts Evoked by Peter Lor, Bradley Wiles, and Johannes Britz, “Re-thinking Information Ethics: Truth, Conspiracy Theories, and Librarians in the COVID-19 Era,” in LIBRI, March 2021

IF 0.8 4区 管理学 Q3 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE
T. Froehlich
{"title":"Some Thoughts Evoked by Peter Lor, Bradley Wiles, and Johannes Britz, “Re-thinking Information Ethics: Truth, Conspiracy Theories, and Librarians in the COVID-19 Era,” in LIBRI, March 2021","authors":"T. Froehlich","doi":"10.1515/libri-2021-0061","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The paper offers some thoughts prompted by the research paper published by Peter Lor, Bradley Wiles, and Johannes Britz, “Re-Thinking Information Ethics: Truth, Conspiracy Theories, and Librarians in the COVID-19 Era,” in LIBRI, March 2021. It highlights two significant contributions, an analysis of the misinformation in the COVID-19 pandemic and the notion of alethic rights, the right of truth of patrons based on the work of D’Agostini. This reflection then situates the COVID-19 misinformation campaign within the broader disinformation ecology within which it exists. While it agrees that alethic rights are an important ethical framework, it wonders whether it practically advances work beyond that libraries and librarians are already doing, e.g., in collection decisions, approaches to reference questions, or library programming. It looks at the debate between John Swan and Noel Peattie on the inclusion of books representing outright lies in the collection (e.g., Holocaust denial). It then contrasts a right to information and authorities propagating and validating that information with a right to misinformation and authorities for propagating and validating that misinformation that exists within disinformation ecologies. The problem of truth, its authorities and its context appears to be more complicated than an appeal to alethic truths: for example, liberals and conservatives differ on the meaning of a rational consensus on contentious political matters, such as climate change. Given the dire consequences of misinformation on democracies and public health, an appeal to professional neutrality is woefully inadequate. There must be proactive resistance, if not outright repudiation.","PeriodicalId":45618,"journal":{"name":"Libri-International Journal of Libraries and Information Studies","volume":"71 1","pages":"219 - 225"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Libri-International Journal of Libraries and Information Studies","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/libri-2021-0061","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract The paper offers some thoughts prompted by the research paper published by Peter Lor, Bradley Wiles, and Johannes Britz, “Re-Thinking Information Ethics: Truth, Conspiracy Theories, and Librarians in the COVID-19 Era,” in LIBRI, March 2021. It highlights two significant contributions, an analysis of the misinformation in the COVID-19 pandemic and the notion of alethic rights, the right of truth of patrons based on the work of D’Agostini. This reflection then situates the COVID-19 misinformation campaign within the broader disinformation ecology within which it exists. While it agrees that alethic rights are an important ethical framework, it wonders whether it practically advances work beyond that libraries and librarians are already doing, e.g., in collection decisions, approaches to reference questions, or library programming. It looks at the debate between John Swan and Noel Peattie on the inclusion of books representing outright lies in the collection (e.g., Holocaust denial). It then contrasts a right to information and authorities propagating and validating that information with a right to misinformation and authorities for propagating and validating that misinformation that exists within disinformation ecologies. The problem of truth, its authorities and its context appears to be more complicated than an appeal to alethic truths: for example, liberals and conservatives differ on the meaning of a rational consensus on contentious political matters, such as climate change. Given the dire consequences of misinformation on democracies and public health, an appeal to professional neutrality is woefully inadequate. There must be proactive resistance, if not outright repudiation.
彼得·洛、布拉德利·怀尔斯和约翰内斯·布里茨在《重新思考信息伦理:新冠肺炎时代的真相、阴谋论和图书馆员》中引发的一些思考,载于《图书馆员协会》,2021年3月
摘要本文提供了由Peter Lor、Bradley Wiles和Johannes Britz于2021年3月在伦敦图书馆研究所发表的研究论文《重新思考信息伦理:新冠肺炎时代的真相、阴谋理论和图书馆员》引发的一些想法。它强调了两个重要贡献,一个是对新冠肺炎大流行中的错误信息的分析,另一个是基于达戈斯蒂尼的工作的赞助人的真相权。这种反思将新冠肺炎错误信息运动置于其存在的更广泛的虚假信息生态中。虽然它同意整体权利是一个重要的伦理框架,但它想知道它是否在实际中推动了图书馆和图书馆员已经在做的工作之外的工作,例如在收藏决策、参考问题处理方法或图书馆编程方面。它着眼于约翰·斯旺和诺埃尔·皮蒂之间关于将代表彻头彻尾谎言的书籍纳入收藏(例如,否认大屠杀)的辩论。然后,它将获得信息的权利和传播和验证信息的当局与虚假信息的权利以及传播和验证虚假信息生态中存在的虚假信息的当局进行了对比。真相、其权威及其背景的问题似乎比诉诸于空洞的真相更为复杂:例如,自由派和保守派在气候变化等有争议的政治问题上,在理性共识的含义上存在分歧。考虑到错误信息对民主国家和公共卫生的可怕后果,呼吁职业中立是远远不够的。如果不是彻底否定,也必须有积极的抵抗。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
25
期刊介绍: Libri, International Journal of Libraries and Information Services, investigates the functions of libraries and information services from both a historical and present-day perspective and analyses the role of information in cultural, organizational, national and international developments. The periodical reports on current trends in librarianship worldwide and describes the transformation of libraries and information services resulting from the introduction of new information technologies and working methods. Background information and the latest research findings in librarianship and information science are made accessible to experts and a broader public. Articles are in English and conform to the highest academic standards.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信