Strenski, Ellen. The Wikipedia/Encyclopedia Britannica Controversy. A Dialectical timeline. WR 139W, Fall 2006, UC Irvine
http://compositioncafe.com/?25950/wikicontroversy.html
Schneider, K.G.. Free Range Librarian. http://freeangelibrarian.com/archives/052905/wikipedia.php
Colbert, Stephen. The Colbert Report:Wikiality. The Colbert Report: The Word Season Z Archive, Sunday 07/30/2006. http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/index.jhtml?ml_video=72347
After reading the discussion board this evening, I checked out our assignments. I started reading the postings in the text of the assignment. The first site connects with articles chronicling a rather heated argument between Nature magazine and Encyclopedia Britannica. The gist of the problem is that the magazine did a semi-scholarly study and published their results in an article which basically claims that the Internet Wikipedia has an accuracy close to the noted Encyclopedia, after a number of entries were reviewed from both sources. Following the article in Nature, several rebuttals were written by former staff and by representatives of the Encyclopedia Britannica. In an official rebuttal, the Britannica cited numerous mistakes, mis/information and erroneous conclusions they say were made in the Nature article. They ended by demanding the story be recanted. Nature, of course, would have no part of this. In the end, those representing Encyclopedia Britannica seem mostly appalled that a source this scholarly, impeccably well-written and eminently respected could be remotely paralleled with the unscholarly and edit-as-you-like reliability of Wikipedia. The second link in part 1 of the assignment links to an article written by a librarian . She takes issue with the reliability of Wikipedia's information. Her career involves providing information to the public and researching the sources she recommends to give the public an idea of the accuracy of that information. She expresses reasonable concerns about Wikipedia's edit-on-the-fly policy but mostly in regards to the possibility of misinformation being 'digested' by readers who do not use a critical eye or check their sources with other sources. She compared it to students who do research and write a paper from only one source-an encyclopedia.
As I read through the links I couldn't help but chuckle. Embedded in both sides of the argument was the fact that overall there were only eight errors of real significance discovered in both sources, five in Wikipedia and three in Encyclopedia Britannica. Both sides readily admitted that they make mistakes and take measures to correct any mistakes immediately when brought to their attention. Nature complains that the reviews were done by experts who did not know the source of the information they were reviewing. They claim their results were unbiased and any mistakes should have evened out in the long run. It appears that these two publications are stuck in a pissing match and the only one on the winning side is not in the argument at all-Wikipedia! The librarian's message is reasonable and well thought out, she bashes no one and her arguments stand on their own. They are in support of one side over the other and should be seen as such, but she points out the importance of information being available to all. She reminds us that too few people check their sources and in the case of the young don't yet have the critical thinking skills to evaluate information and sources.
Perhaps the most important overall point of these articles is that Wikipedia is not advertised as an authority on all subjects, it is an information source for a very large number of subjects. I cannot believe that it represents a real threat to the Encyclopedia Britannica. I fact the whole idea of this is quite preposterous. The Encyclopedia is historically recognized as an authority and takes this responsibility very seriously. Wikipedia is a new and very novel source of information. They also take responsibility for the information they disseminate as is evidenced by the low number of errors reported in the Nature article and their willingness to correct any errors they find. I have to believe that the editors at Encyclopedia Britannica have taken themselves a bit too seriously. The value of Wikipedia is in the open format that is used. While anyone may post information on a subject others are just as free to add to or correct the information. All of this adding and editing takes place in the open and in public. Reading these links reminds me of a quote I heard attributed to Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. He stated that "the answer to bad speech is more speech".
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Saturday, January 27, 2007
Identity Management in Cyberspace
Suler, John. "Identity Management in Cyberspace." Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic Studies, 4, 455-460.
Mr Suler gives some important insights to consider when weighing in who we will present as ourselves in cyberspace. Often much depends on the group we are joining. Different groups expect different aspects or levels of identity. A professional group wants to see you 'as you really are', a fantasy or gaming group expects you to take on an 'avatar', a chat group expects each partipicant to decide for themselves. We often tend to overanalyze ourselves and forget that our identity is a very complex aspect of who we are. Cyberspace allows us to present all or parts of ourselves in a medium of our own choice. We should remember, though, that often the choices we make reveal things about us we were not intending to show.
Who am I? Who do I want to be? What do I want others to see in me? These are all questions we deal with almost automatically in our everyday lives. But when we enter cyberspace we worry because here we are creating ourselves to be seen by others. We all have parts of ourself that we view as negative, that we don't like, and parts that we see positively, that we like. Cyberspace allows us to present the person we like, become the person we fantasize and examine the person we don't like. This can be a very good thing.
"A single person's identity embodies multiplicity." It is important to take a step back once in a while and examine ourselves objectively. We need to realize that all the roles we have played and tasks we have taken on contribute to who we are. Cyberspace allows us to present all or part of that person. This article gives relavent points we should consider and utilize when entering this 'space'. But what is important to remember is what Mr. Suler describes as "the hallmark of mental health...bringing together the various components of online and offline identity into one balanced, harmonious whole."
Mr Suler gives some important insights to consider when weighing in who we will present as ourselves in cyberspace. Often much depends on the group we are joining. Different groups expect different aspects or levels of identity. A professional group wants to see you 'as you really are', a fantasy or gaming group expects you to take on an 'avatar', a chat group expects each partipicant to decide for themselves. We often tend to overanalyze ourselves and forget that our identity is a very complex aspect of who we are. Cyberspace allows us to present all or parts of ourselves in a medium of our own choice. We should remember, though, that often the choices we make reveal things about us we were not intending to show.
Who am I? Who do I want to be? What do I want others to see in me? These are all questions we deal with almost automatically in our everyday lives. But when we enter cyberspace we worry because here we are creating ourselves to be seen by others. We all have parts of ourself that we view as negative, that we don't like, and parts that we see positively, that we like. Cyberspace allows us to present the person we like, become the person we fantasize and examine the person we don't like. This can be a very good thing.
"A single person's identity embodies multiplicity." It is important to take a step back once in a while and examine ourselves objectively. We need to realize that all the roles we have played and tasks we have taken on contribute to who we are. Cyberspace allows us to present all or part of that person. This article gives relavent points we should consider and utilize when entering this 'space'. But what is important to remember is what Mr. Suler describes as "the hallmark of mental health...bringing together the various components of online and offline identity into one balanced, harmonious whole."
Friday, January 26, 2007
My Website, Myself
Daum, Meghan. "My Website, Myself" July 27th, 2004, 11:45AM http://www.meghandaum.com
Meghan's website article tells about the struggles she faced personally and as a professional writer in creating a website for her work. As she worried about how to present herself, she wondered if she might find herself creating another person entirely. While she told us how much effort went into her decisions, she lamented that her site came up short in comparison to other websites. Ms. Daum realized the importance of creating a website for herself and her work. She states that it is "an opportunity for creative people to explain ourselves, to set the record straight, to recreate our images by suggesting that we are in fact something entirely different from what our publicist, agent or mother assumes us to be." But she worries that writers don't entirely trust the reader to understand on their own, that they perhaps need a "reader's guide". Meghan expresses lament about a time when written ideas "resided soley in the work itself".
Meghan writes about her worries in describing not only herself but also her work. She wants to present the real picture on her website but has found out how difficult that can be. What has not changed is that "all artists grapple with the fallout of presenting work to the public...The value of artists websites will probably remain, like the work itself, in the eye of the beholder".
I feel Meghan may have come to grips with the concerns she had about creating a website for her work. She knows that no matter what her site looks like, she will always find a better one. As a writer, she faces the same lack of control all writers face regarding how well her work will be understood and received. She sees the website as a way not only to promote but to help readers understand her work. In the end, however readers will see what 'they' see and interpret in their own minds. And Meghan is who she is,no matter how others see her on her website. And she can live with that.
Meghan's website article tells about the struggles she faced personally and as a professional writer in creating a website for her work. As she worried about how to present herself, she wondered if she might find herself creating another person entirely. While she told us how much effort went into her decisions, she lamented that her site came up short in comparison to other websites. Ms. Daum realized the importance of creating a website for herself and her work. She states that it is "an opportunity for creative people to explain ourselves, to set the record straight, to recreate our images by suggesting that we are in fact something entirely different from what our publicist, agent or mother assumes us to be." But she worries that writers don't entirely trust the reader to understand on their own, that they perhaps need a "reader's guide". Meghan expresses lament about a time when written ideas "resided soley in the work itself".
Meghan writes about her worries in describing not only herself but also her work. She wants to present the real picture on her website but has found out how difficult that can be. What has not changed is that "all artists grapple with the fallout of presenting work to the public...The value of artists websites will probably remain, like the work itself, in the eye of the beholder".
I feel Meghan may have come to grips with the concerns she had about creating a website for her work. She knows that no matter what her site looks like, she will always find a better one. As a writer, she faces the same lack of control all writers face regarding how well her work will be understood and received. She sees the website as a way not only to promote but to help readers understand her work. In the end, however readers will see what 'they' see and interpret in their own minds. And Meghan is who she is,no matter how others see her on her website. And she can live with that.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Yours Truly
Ogunnaike, Lola. “’Yours Truly,’ the E-Variations.” New York Times November 26, 2006
This article deals with salutations in e-mail communications. With the age of internet communications Ms. Ogunnaike makes several good points. Email needs an appropriate opening and an appropriate sign-off. We need to keep in mind the purpose of our message and who it is being sent to. Does it need to be formal or convey respect? Do we need to be friendly and intimate or friendly but at a distance. All of this is influenced by our own personality but we need to remember that the person who receives this receives only this message not the sender personally.
Ms. Ogunaike writes that “the final few words above your name are where relationships and hierarchies are established”, that salutations and sign-offs can be “a land mine”. We are cautioned that “it is important that the closing is in keeping with the spirit of the message”.
Dealing with emails today can sometimes challenge one’s imagination. Greetings should reflect the status of the person we are contacting and the importance of our message. Sign-offs need to be somewhere between friendly and courteous but never rude or abrupt.
Hargittai, Eszter. “A Primer on Electronic Communication.” News, Views and Careers for All of Higher Education November 28
Ms. Hargittai discusses the importance of writing emails in a way that improves the chances they will be read and not relegated ‘trash’. This is especially important if a response is needed. We imagine that everyone gives the same importance to our emails that we do but in today’s world people and especially professionals and businesses are often swamped with correspondence. We need to find a way to ensure our message gets priority on that end.
The author gives an outline form of suggestions to follow to “optimize the chances of receiving a response to emails to unknown people. The following is that list taken directly from her article:
-Descriptive subject line
-Polite point-of-contact
-Succinct statement of the message’s purpose
-Brief introduction of yourself
-Acknowledging other attempts at finding an answer or solution
-Restatement of question
-Gratitude for assistance
We are reminded by the author that “all of these sections should be very brief and to read the letter ourselves before sending it off. First impressions are still the most lasting.
There is also a caution to “make sure that whatever you send off is something that would not be a cause for embarrassment if people other than the recipient were to see it”. This is certainly a good reminder because of the ease with which the sender click and send your message off to others.
Elmer-Dewitt, Philip. “Bards Of the Internet.” TIME, July 04, 1994. http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,981013,00.html
Mr. Elmer-Dewitt has presented a view of internet communication that I had never considered. He applauds it as “the greatest boom in letter writing since the 18th century”. While many of us have been appalled by what we see as bad writing, especially with ‘instant messaging’, he reminds us that popular sites have become “so crowded with writers crying for attention that a Darwinian survival principle has started to prevail.”
Writers need to be better to make an impact. I hadn’t thought about the fact that it is very difficult to be published even today. The internet offers an opportunity for anyone to express their thoughts and ideas but actually encourages better writing through competition to be read. He feels that those who are netwriters because they can and do “write, write and write". Isn’t this what I learned in my first writing class?
This article deals with salutations in e-mail communications. With the age of internet communications Ms. Ogunnaike makes several good points. Email needs an appropriate opening and an appropriate sign-off. We need to keep in mind the purpose of our message and who it is being sent to. Does it need to be formal or convey respect? Do we need to be friendly and intimate or friendly but at a distance. All of this is influenced by our own personality but we need to remember that the person who receives this receives only this message not the sender personally.
Ms. Ogunaike writes that “the final few words above your name are where relationships and hierarchies are established”, that salutations and sign-offs can be “a land mine”. We are cautioned that “it is important that the closing is in keeping with the spirit of the message”.
Dealing with emails today can sometimes challenge one’s imagination. Greetings should reflect the status of the person we are contacting and the importance of our message. Sign-offs need to be somewhere between friendly and courteous but never rude or abrupt.
Hargittai, Eszter. “A Primer on Electronic Communication.” News, Views and Careers for All of Higher Education November 28
Ms. Hargittai discusses the importance of writing emails in a way that improves the chances they will be read and not relegated ‘trash’. This is especially important if a response is needed. We imagine that everyone gives the same importance to our emails that we do but in today’s world people and especially professionals and businesses are often swamped with correspondence. We need to find a way to ensure our message gets priority on that end.
The author gives an outline form of suggestions to follow to “optimize the chances of receiving a response to emails to unknown people. The following is that list taken directly from her article:
-Descriptive subject line
-Polite point-of-contact
-Succinct statement of the message’s purpose
-Brief introduction of yourself
-Acknowledging other attempts at finding an answer or solution
-Restatement of question
-Gratitude for assistance
We are reminded by the author that “all of these sections should be very brief and to read the letter ourselves before sending it off. First impressions are still the most lasting.
There is also a caution to “make sure that whatever you send off is something that would not be a cause for embarrassment if people other than the recipient were to see it”. This is certainly a good reminder because of the ease with which the sender click and send your message off to others.
Elmer-Dewitt, Philip. “Bards Of the Internet.” TIME, July 04, 1994. http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,981013,00.html
Mr. Elmer-Dewitt has presented a view of internet communication that I had never considered. He applauds it as “the greatest boom in letter writing since the 18th century”. While many of us have been appalled by what we see as bad writing, especially with ‘instant messaging’, he reminds us that popular sites have become “so crowded with writers crying for attention that a Darwinian survival principle has started to prevail.”
Writers need to be better to make an impact. I hadn’t thought about the fact that it is very difficult to be published even today. The internet offers an opportunity for anyone to express their thoughts and ideas but actually encourages better writing through competition to be read. He feels that those who are netwriters because they can and do “write, write and write". Isn’t this what I learned in my first writing class?
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Reading assignments
Cut and paste this into your wordprocessor or straight into your blog, or use an alternative format.[1] The notes gathered here should illustrate that you have read the week’s assignment. However, they are also for your own use for future thinking, research, and writing. It thus should exhibit your personal style and fresh approaches to that material. You will also use this format when gathering research for your research paper.
Complete citation in MLA form:
Main idea of reading (in your own words):
YOUR thoughts about the reading overall:
Useful quotes—be sure to use quotation marks and page numbers—followed by your reactions to quotes:[2]
[1] The goal is to make the ideas from the source and your own thoughts clearly and visibly distinct, to avoid confusion while drafting. Some ideas: Create a dialogue. Write “source:” followed by source info, then underneath “me:” followed by your thoughts. OR make format distinctions such as putting either the source ideas or yours in bold, italics, underlined, or in different colors, while the other is plain.
[2] Let the text inspire your own thinking. Ask yourself: why am I jotting down this information? Why do I think it’s important? Write that answer down. If this is for your research paper, you may also want to include notes to yourself about how you want to use the information—e.g., “this would be a great opening quote” or “I should follow this with some statistics to give more evidence.” This step is important whether you agree with your source or if you disagree. Sometimes reading and thinking about the latter helps you clarify your opinions more precisely, and including and refuting counter-claims makes a stronger paper.
Complete citation in MLA form:
Main idea of reading (in your own words):
YOUR thoughts about the reading overall:
Useful quotes—be sure to use quotation marks and page numbers—followed by your reactions to quotes:[2]
[1] The goal is to make the ideas from the source and your own thoughts clearly and visibly distinct, to avoid confusion while drafting. Some ideas: Create a dialogue. Write “source:” followed by source info, then underneath “me:” followed by your thoughts. OR make format distinctions such as putting either the source ideas or yours in bold, italics, underlined, or in different colors, while the other is plain.
[2] Let the text inspire your own thinking. Ask yourself: why am I jotting down this information? Why do I think it’s important? Write that answer down. If this is for your research paper, you may also want to include notes to yourself about how you want to use the information—e.g., “this would be a great opening quote” or “I should follow this with some statistics to give more evidence.” This step is important whether you agree with your source or if you disagree. Sometimes reading and thinking about the latter helps you clarify your opinions more precisely, and including and refuting counter-claims makes a stronger paper.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Rhetoric
http://www.brightrockpress.com/popsample.htm#chapter1
This is the address for a very interesting reading about rhetoric. It was my source when I replied to the first weeks thread.
This is the address for a very interesting reading about rhetoric. It was my source when I replied to the first weeks thread.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)