Auditing a wikipedia article has really opened my eyes to the unreliability of online information. In my honest opinion, Wikipedia should not be used as a scholarly source. Though i'm sure that most information on that website is probably true, scholarly sources must be 100% factual base on the most up to date research. Wikipedia is a like a secondary market of scholarly information. It derives its entries from scholarly articles, and also more dangerously, non scholarly ones.
However, there are a few benefits to using wikipedia as a source on its own. From the experience of this project I have found that Wikipedia had the most comprehensive information from any one article on the subject matter (cloning.)Other websites may have gone more into detail about certain aspects of cloning, like ethics, but wikipedia has a better, global presentation of the topic. For this reason, its biggest advantage, is to use it as a jumping off point to research that should extend beyond online encyclopedias. It will give you an idea of what exactly you want to research, especially on popular and controversial topics. Despite this advantage, Wikipedia is still user generated and information that is displayed is never entirely reliable. Even statements that may be presented as quotes, are sometimes a rewording of the orginal sentence.
Because most people acknowledge these strengths and weaknesses, people may be less gullible and willing to believe news and media. There is so much information out there that is blasted at us, and Wikipedia is a big part of this, that we have no choice but to disregard some of it. This is especially true when you have contradicting information. As a society, we may also be more willing to procrastinate our work, because we know that we have so much potential information on our fingertips. Many people will used Wikipedia as a scholarly source, because it is on the surface of any research in terms of search results.
Before this project, I used to think that Wikipedia entries were populated by the elite college professors. I never actually took a look at the source section. In reality, an extremely large portion of the entry is pulled from other websites and books. Wikipedia just brings all of these sources together, edited by the common person. For me, it has taught to dig deeper when it comes to research, and perhaps use wikipedia only as a jumping off point that will lead to more substantial information.
Friday, November 19, 2010
Friday, November 12, 2010
The Social Network
The Social Network is a film about Mark Zuckerberg and his journey through Harvard to eventually creating Facebook. The movie tells its story through a retrospective lens: a legal case where Zuckerberg's best friend and colleagues are suing him, for stealing their idea. It's a bit of a sticky situation becuase the movie does show Zuckerberg meeting with those colleagues (the Winklevoss twins) and discussing a website that can connect all Harvard students and be able to share their information with one another. It's hard to tell who the movie sympathizes with; the makers of facebook or not. Zuckerberg is conveyed as a bit of jerk, condescendingly talking to his girlfriend and only interested in his won accomplishments. But really, what makes him this way is also the driving force of the greatest project of his life, thus far.
One of the things i did not like about the movie is the exaggeration of people's morals and the way that they are portrayed in the movie. For instance, Sean Parker, the creator of Napster from the start was shown as a sleazy guy sleeping with a girl, on a one night stand. his relationship with facebook and Zuckerberg also starts on a rocky foundation. Mark's best friend Eduardo, appointed CFO of the company, didn't like Parker from the start. Eventually Parker pushes Eduardo out of the company by diluting his shares in the company from one third down to less than one tenth of one percent. Towards the end of the movie he gets caught literally with cocaine on his hands. The film accomplishes showing its characters in this negative light. The only good that came from Parker was his advice to drop "The" from "Thefacebook."
Another interesting point I noted was how there seemed to be certain subplots that did not really seem to lead the viewer anywhere. For instance in one scene, Zuckerberg was attending a lecture Bill Gates was speaking at, and afterward outside he had an awkward encounter with several students asking him if he was the creator of facebook. At the moment of the scene, I thought new characters were about to enter the script, but then slowly that tangent faded out. I realized after the movie ended that it actually made sense to have seemingly useless subplots in the movie, because it is based off a true story. A story that's still changing everyday, so it's hard to tell what became of certain events, and the movie did a good job of incorporating that.
Facebook has had a tremendous effect on college life and beyond. What started off as a platform for a few Harvard students to connect with one another became a regular part of life of every college student out there.
One of the things i did not like about the movie is the exaggeration of people's morals and the way that they are portrayed in the movie. For instance, Sean Parker, the creator of Napster from the start was shown as a sleazy guy sleeping with a girl, on a one night stand. his relationship with facebook and Zuckerberg also starts on a rocky foundation. Mark's best friend Eduardo, appointed CFO of the company, didn't like Parker from the start. Eventually Parker pushes Eduardo out of the company by diluting his shares in the company from one third down to less than one tenth of one percent. Towards the end of the movie he gets caught literally with cocaine on his hands. The film accomplishes showing its characters in this negative light. The only good that came from Parker was his advice to drop "The" from "Thefacebook."
Another interesting point I noted was how there seemed to be certain subplots that did not really seem to lead the viewer anywhere. For instance in one scene, Zuckerberg was attending a lecture Bill Gates was speaking at, and afterward outside he had an awkward encounter with several students asking him if he was the creator of facebook. At the moment of the scene, I thought new characters were about to enter the script, but then slowly that tangent faded out. I realized after the movie ended that it actually made sense to have seemingly useless subplots in the movie, because it is based off a true story. A story that's still changing everyday, so it's hard to tell what became of certain events, and the movie did a good job of incorporating that.
Facebook has had a tremendous effect on college life and beyond. What started off as a platform for a few Harvard students to connect with one another became a regular part of life of every college student out there.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Made to Break, Part III
The last third of Slade's made to break extends the idea of obsolescence beyond the physical. By the 1960's, the terms was describing "people's knowledge, training, and skill sets." Cyberspace was the wave of the future. The advent of video games made such a huge impact on our society and culture, that one professor believed that in the future we will be living in a virtual reality. However, even video games themselves were not able to dodge being thrown out like most other things in our society.For instance, the game of pinball is "now a species close to extinction." (pg. 224) Game consoles have gotten superbly advanced over the years and the older arcade games, like pinball, have been left in the dust, only to be picked up by those with a nostalgic longing for the past.
More seriously, Slade described the the obsolescence of weaponization as an American strategy against the Soviets, during the Cold War Era. American Products were sabotaged before they were acquired by the Russians Ie. they were modified to work initirially as expected, but after "a few trust-winning months, it would salt its output with defective chips.." (p.254.)
Slade closed his book by describing the effect of cellphones' short life span and how they are the biggest contributor to e -waste.
I think that what's has happened is that with miniaturization, people are becoming more comfortable tossing their electronic goods out. This, in combination with people's non committal attitudes, provides the perfect storm for ridding themselves of undesirable electronics. Our next big step must be "planned disassembly" as Slade describes it in his last few words of the text; reuse as part of the product cycle. Since we use limited resources in creation and development of electronics, we have no choice but to recylce our e-waste.
More seriously, Slade described the the obsolescence of weaponization as an American strategy against the Soviets, during the Cold War Era. American Products were sabotaged before they were acquired by the Russians Ie. they were modified to work initirially as expected, but after "a few trust-winning months, it would salt its output with defective chips.." (p.254.)
Slade closed his book by describing the effect of cellphones' short life span and how they are the biggest contributor to e -waste.
I think that what's has happened is that with miniaturization, people are becoming more comfortable tossing their electronic goods out. This, in combination with people's non committal attitudes, provides the perfect storm for ridding themselves of undesirable electronics. Our next big step must be "planned disassembly" as Slade describes it in his last few words of the text; reuse as part of the product cycle. Since we use limited resources in creation and development of electronics, we have no choice but to recylce our e-waste.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)