Talk:Information ethics

Dear Max,

I think you missed somehow the point of the activity when you added a new article underneath the previous one, despite its inherent value -as I already mentioned in my previous comment. Since the purpose of glossaLAB is clarifyng concepts, theories and frameworks, in this case you should have contibuted to improve to what we already had, i.e., a picture of what information ethics are. When you speak of 'ethics of information' there's no substantial difference to 'information ethics', then you should have contributed to the previous one. You should have observed the previous article and integrate your adds, according to the collaborative purpose of the clarifications at stake. For those reasons your article (under the epigraph "ethics of information") has been moved to the draft spacename into the follwing page Draft:Ethics of Information, while the rest of the article previously in the main spacename has been turned back therein. Within the current article concerning 'information ethics', I have left on the top an invitation to bring your clarifications about the ethics of information sharing -though you are the one who can do it better-.

Cordial regards, José María Díaz Nafría (talk) 15:02, 11 February 2025 (CET)

Dear Fabian and Max,

It is a pitty you didn't get to coordinate your contributions, despite the interest of the problems you have dealt with. I wasn't expecting Max would contribute to this topic and pitfully you did it in a single shot in January 4th, while Fabian added something the day after deleting a significant part of Max' contribution. Since Fabian's contribution is much shorter than required and its content could be generated by AI in a proportion which is not acceptable, I think Fabian sould work in recovering Max contents and increasing its value in the topics Fabian intented to contribute, but you have to create original contents.

When Fabian is done, I recomend Max reviews the text to ensure your part is properly preserved and that the complete article conforms a coherent and well-articlulated whole.

Thank you in advance. All the best, José María Díaz Nafría (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2025 (CET)

Comments to contributions before Winter Semester 2025/2026

Dear Vedat,

Thank you for the clarifications done in such an important field of ethics nowadays. Despite you offer a broad coverage of the field of information ethics and its topics, the order of your article as you elaborated was confusing because you addressed the historical development, then classified the field, afterwords turned back to the historical development; you opened up some ethical topics, then move to methodological questions, then back to topics, etc. The epigraphs of your draft were all classified at an equivalent level of importance and all that made the article confusing. For that reason I have fully restructured the article to make it more systematic, and have taken the content –re-elaborated– to a new article devoted to information alone that I have newly opened. I have corrected your clarification regarding information and also the one the information ethics, as well as many formatting issues, particularly concerning the bibliographic references. I hope you don't dislike all these changes.

All in all, I hope you have learn about the topic, about ethics in general and have enjoyed the journey. Most cordial regards,

José María Díaz Nafría (talk) 22:15, 25 July 2024 (CEST)