Reading Notes 3/24/2007

"More on Plagiarism Detection" Sept. 24, '06 -Clancy

• I think I am like Clancy. I wouldn't mind bringing in my paper trail on an essay if it meant that those who were plagiarising got caught.
• Clancy makes a good point: easier to plagiarize and easier for professors to prove plagiarism
• While more work for the professor/teacher, I think Clancy has a point here: establish communication with students. Watch their writing process closely
• Googling passages from the paper (a teacher thinks might be plagiarized) is also a great idea
• Way to call out Turnitin.com...it's a business, just like any other...interested in $
• I think if a teacher/professor is going to call a student in b/c of possibly plagiarizing, it is the teacher/professors duty to at least tell the student what he/she is getting called in for. Give him or her the opportunity to present sources. It should become obvious during the meeting if the sources are legit.
• I'm looking forward to discussing this article further in class. I'd really like some info on what Turnitin.com is all about. Maybe I'll do some looking around on the site. I've heard of it, but I'm not all that familiar with its features.

"Wikipedia to Seek Proof of Credentials" -Brian Bergstein

• Wikipedia verifying credentials, but authors can still remain anonymous
• "W/O a lot of hassle" isn't that mainly what the Internet is about? At least when it comes to people using the Internet for leisure...if the features of a website create too much of a hassle, the website probably won't be able to keep very many users
• Interesting that Ryan Jordan was lying, yet got promoted to arbitrator. I am sure there are many other cases like this same one that haven't come to the surface. I can understand why professor wouldn't want students to be able to use this site as a source. Scholarly sources are the way to go.
• Anonymity of Wikipeda="a frequent cause of mischief"
• I am amazed by all the articles Wikipedia houses in other languages
• Jimmy Wales, mockingly, "It's always inappropriate to win an argument by flashing your credentials, and even more so if those credentials are inaccurate" (2). In regards to Ryan Jordan

"Can Wikipedia Ever Make the Grade" Oct. 27 '06 -Brock Read

• Alexander M.C. Halavais "Dr. al-Halawi" added errors to Wikipedia articles (Wow, surprised to read that less than 3 hours later all of his incorrect additions were fixed)
• Wikipedia and its amateur editors
• But, using Wikipedia as a source? I'm not sure I want to use a source for my papers that "does a FAIRLY good job at getting its facts straight" (1).
• I can see where some academics are coming from when they say, "It devalues the notion of expertise itself." (1) Anyone can post!
• I think if experts and professors are trying to screw Wikipedia b/c they are not getting priority, that's ridiculous.
• A new site specifically for experts...Larry Sanger
• I agree, "If you can't beat the Wikipedians, join 'em."
• Wikimania...with the number of articles growing each day, how is it possible to check all for accuracy? (Now Wikipedia has made a turn toward accuracy)
• "The openness that makes Wikipedia so alluring to its contributors is precisely what discomfits scholars" (2).
• John Seigenthaler's incorrect site
• Now users must register before they post articles
• Wow, sites like answers.com pull from Wiki...who would have thought?
• Nature's findings: Wiki and Britannica on almost the same playing fields
• I think that's the cool thing...Wiki is continuing making itself better--"Mr. Rosenzweig [history prof at George Mason] notes...several Wikipedians have read his critiques and edited a number of articles in response to his concerns (3).
• A surprise to me that science articles are the strongest on Wiki
• Less articles on humanities b/c of interpretive finesse
• Unfortunate that experts are writing things and they get cut up...I can see why some scholars are turned away from Wiki
• Does Wiki have a "tendency to value anonymous communal thought over individual intellect"...group think can be a bad thing
• I like how Read puts it, Attitude Adjustment
• Wikipedia vs. Mr. Sanger's Citizendium...expert editors get final say!

"Internet Encyclopaedias Go Head to Head" Dec. 14, 2005 -Nature

• Nature's investigation used peer review to compare Wiki to Britannica's coverage of science
• Since about the same amount of errors in both...Wiki's co-founder says this "shows the potential of Wikipedia"
• Four errors from each encyclopaedia were considered serious
• 162 minor errors in Wiki vs. 123 Britannica (seems to me like a lot of errors from both, but it does show Wiki's ability to be on almost the same playing field)
• Wiki has speed but more articles that are "poorly structured and confusing"
• New thing for Wiki=tagging articles as stable (seems like a good idea)

[Supplementary Information]

• Reviewers regarded as experts (in field long time/highly regarded by peers)
• They did not know what article was from what encyclopaedia
• Randomly selected scientific articles (based upon terms reporters would check in an encyclopaedia)

[Encyclopaedia Britannica's Rebutal] "Fatally Flawed" March 2006

• Saying Nature's research invalid
• Brit claims, what Nature said were inaccuracies were not at all, also, some of the articles examined were not even in the encyclopaedia.
• Misleading headline (the journal misrepresented its own results, so Brit says)
• Brit says, Nature declined making full reports available
• Brit identifies problems: article not from actual Encyclopaedia Britannica and in some cases the full article was not reviewed, or they patched two different articles together
• Reviewers = not required to provide sources to Nature (I definitely see this as a problem)
• One thing that bothers me about this article is that Brit is saying what they think the "lay reader" or "general reader" needs to know. Why is it up to them to decide what I need to know and not know?

[ Nature standing by their story]

• Nature saying they provided Brit most of what they asked for, except for reviewers' reports
• Seems many of the things Brit is against (or says were wrong), Nature says they did deliberately
• ***Interesting, "Britannica has subsequently corrected many of the errors that our reviewers identified.
• Final point, "individual mistakes will have averaged out" (I don't think this is the best, to make me feel the data is accurate; however, I guess it will have to do)

AAK

Reading Notes 3/23/2007

"In Teens' Web World, MySpace is So Last Year" Oct. 29, '06 -Yuki Noguchi

• Yes, that's what I'm talking about! I love THE FACEBOOK. I've never been a MySpacer, I don't even have an account.
• Teens and the Internet: "Powerful but fickle"
• Interesting, the effects teen fickleness has on advertisers
• Never even heard of Xanga (and Friendstar?)
• I think the reasons listed for leaving MySpace are very legitimate
• The want and search for innovative and new features by teens on the Internet is what helps keeps it fresh.
• It's amazing how the list for popular teen sights can changes drastically by month
• I think as long as MySpace and other sites like it keep expanding their features, they'll be around for awhile.
• As with Noguchi's last point (Evan Hansen's comment), will people go back to more traditional forms of communication when they get tired of talking on the computer? An interesting thought.

"Etiquette for the Bar" Jan. 12, '07 -Katherine Mangan

• As with the two Drake Univ. fake examples, where is the line drawn when it comes to innocently socializing and being disrespectful toward authority?
• Being somewhat younger, I almost want to say, these (profiles) are these kids lives, let them live.
• I do agree that writing an e-mail to somebody makes the communication seem informal no matter who the receiver is
• I'm still not sure how I feel about the judge getting in students business and writing to the dean saying that the students need to act professionally.
• I think the workshop is a good idea though. At least to present the information to the students.
• ***That's a better way to go about. It makes sense. Just restrict access for who can view your pages. Although, now that I think about it, one of my professors from U of I is my friend on the Facebook.

AAK

Reading Notes 3/6/2007

Scott McCloud's online comic "Porphyria's Lover"

• McCloud presents an interesting take on this poem through his comic.
• Looking at his other online comics, I felt his graphics could have been better and more detailed.

Scott McCloud's "I Can't Stop Thinking Columns"

• (1) "The HTML Blues" June 2000: "Today's HTML standards reflect just a small part of what the web is capable of."
• (2) "The 99.9% Solution--Online Diversity" (chess example) "Diversity can be a doorway which non-comics readers can be drawn to the form itself through pre-existing areas of interest."

***Can't Miss This (My recommended Scott McCloud Online Comics--listed under The Morning Improv)

• #24 "A Bucket Full of Kittens"
• #10 "Meadow of the Damned Conclusion"
• #2 "Proto the Pet"

"What We're Doing When We Blog" -Meg Hourihan June '02

• Weblogs vs. Warblogs
• Weblogs traditional definition= "links-plus-commentary" (1)
• Commonality of weblogs=the format
• Blog characteristics (1) conversational tone (2) post is not a full argument but open to discussion
• Readers join the conversation by commenting
• A weblog "post is a self-contained topical unit" (2) There is no minimum or maximum on its length
• Weblog has the newest information at the top (immediacy and timeliness play a role here)
• I like Hourihan's discussion under The Time Stamp about moments of shared experience. While you may not even know the person's blog you're reading, there is a connection, especially if you comment back and the blogger reads it. To describe this, Hourihan uses the term "bloggers dinner." (3)
• Hmm, what does Hourihan mean by her statement, "What we say isn't as important as the system that enable us to say it?" (3)
• Final idea: I think Hourihan gives us a nice perspective into blogging, since she is a blogger herself. This class's blog is the first blog I've had. It's interesting to learn what else in the form of blogging exists our there in cyberspace.

"Bloggers: A Portrait of the Internet's New Storytellers" Summary of Findings

-Amanda Lenhart and Susannah Fox July '06

• #1 reason for blogging=personal journal with politics and government as runner-up (I don't think that finding would surprise anyone)
• I like hearing that blogging is evenly split between men and women. And just as we've talked in class, it's no surprise that bloggers tend to be younger.
• Wow, 74% of users are white to 9% African American. I didn't think this data would be even; however, I did expect African American users would be higher.
• It's good to hear that bloggers are focused on checking facts and citing original sources. If this is true for high school age bloggers, this could be a great help for students already knowing that citing sources is important for their classroom papers as well.
• I think being aware of what's going on in your world in community is an important thing. It's great to see that 72% of bloggers also look online for new or information about politics.
• "Blogging is bringing new voices to the online world" (I totally agree, thanks for the Findings @ a Glance)

*Be looking for notes on "In Teens' Web World, MySpace Is So Last Year" and "Etiquette for the Bar" in my blog for our next class meeting.

-AAK