1. The “power law distribution” or “long tail” phenomenon, as seen in behavior online on the Wikipedia, suggests that the concept of an average user of wikipedia is meaningless. Support your answer: how do you think a local, “JMU only” version of the Wikipedia would compare to the worldwide version? Would it be very similar? Higher quality? Less quality? Why?
I think that a JMU only version of Wikipedia would be somewhat similar to wikipedia, but with far fewer results. While we do have many scholars that know a lot about diverse topics, I believe that there would still be far fewer posts onto JMU's wikipedia site for a number of reasons. First of all, the number of potential JMU wikipedia "posters" would be far fewer than if it were open to all people to post. For example, there may only be one or two professors at JMU who have a lot to comment about, say, Irish literature. If neither of these two professors have any desire or knowledge about a JMU wikipedia, the quantity and quality of the potential information on Irish Literature becomes limited to students who are not necessarily experts within that field. When wikipedia is open to all internet users, the liklihood of an expert user within the field of Irish Literature is much more likely to post something with much better quality than a student at JMU.
Basically, the quality of a worldwide wikipedia will be much better than one isolated to JMU just because of the number of potential experts and people willing to give input is much higher and the information would be much broader than if it was contained to a small sample of individuals.
2. After reading the article about Scratch and exploring the Scratch website, what are some observable benefits in creating a space to share student work?
In one word, remixing. Having the ability to take the work of someone else and expand upon it to make it even better is probably one of the biggest benefits that I see from creating a space for students to share work. It's like the epitome of creative learning. Younger students are no longer just learning things being taught to them, but with programs like Scratch, they now have the ability to create and expand on programs that they are interested in. Not only that, but it creates a sense of pride because after you create something on that site, other people have the ability to use it and the creator can feel a sense of accomplishment at being the one that provided it for other people to use and "remix." I believe that the ability to share and expand on others' work easily is revolutionizing the way that we learn and teach.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Friday, October 22, 2010
Wifi and Patriots
1. If your mother uses wifi at home to send you e-mail, and your home network is not protected by WEP or WPA, what reasons would you suggest to her for enabling one of these two protocols at home if the liability of reading those e-mails still exists once her message leaves your home, on it’s way to school?
Without protection it can be quite simple for someone jump onto your network and access your personal information, like your e-mails. The main reason that I would give to my mother is that records from TJX stated that even by using WEP protection, more than 45 million credit card and debit card records were stolen from them. That being said, I would tell my mother to at the very least get WPA protection. The last thing that I would want is for someone to access all of my mother's or my own personal data just because she doesn't have proper protection.
2. Some news reports have suggested that the Bush administration used the USA Patriot Act to look at the e-mails of American citizens without a warrant. What’s your position if this was indeed the case? Should citizens be willing to give up their privacy? Does it bother you to know that your online communications are very potentially semi-private instead of private?
I personally think that the Patriot Act was not a wise choice on behalf of our government. While I do believe that our safety is extremely important, I also believe that our freedom is. When you no longer can send an e-mail without the threat of the government reading it and deciding if it is OK, a question needs to be raised as to how free are we really? I see this going in a bad direction in the future. While it may seem like it is a good idea now to give our government the ability to invade our privacy because it is for our safety, I could see them being able to justify themselves and use these policies when it is not desperately needed in the future. I believe that privacy should be maintained to the fullest degree possible.
Without protection it can be quite simple for someone jump onto your network and access your personal information, like your e-mails. The main reason that I would give to my mother is that records from TJX stated that even by using WEP protection, more than 45 million credit card and debit card records were stolen from them. That being said, I would tell my mother to at the very least get WPA protection. The last thing that I would want is for someone to access all of my mother's or my own personal data just because she doesn't have proper protection.
2. Some news reports have suggested that the Bush administration used the USA Patriot Act to look at the e-mails of American citizens without a warrant. What’s your position if this was indeed the case? Should citizens be willing to give up their privacy? Does it bother you to know that your online communications are very potentially semi-private instead of private?
I personally think that the Patriot Act was not a wise choice on behalf of our government. While I do believe that our safety is extremely important, I also believe that our freedom is. When you no longer can send an e-mail without the threat of the government reading it and deciding if it is OK, a question needs to be raised as to how free are we really? I see this going in a bad direction in the future. While it may seem like it is a good idea now to give our government the ability to invade our privacy because it is for our safety, I could see them being able to justify themselves and use these policies when it is not desperately needed in the future. I believe that privacy should be maintained to the fullest degree possible.
WIki Wiki
The concept of a Wiki is one that seems so simple and yet there are complexities that come along with using it.
A Wiki is essentially an editable website. The purpose of these websites is to show and share information with others that can be edited by yourself and others.
There are links within pages that allow you to travel from page to page with ease. A Wiki will create a page for you which allows you to put links into other pages that transfer you to a page that you can place information into. I like to think of it as an all-inclusive conversation.
According to Day 2 of the 21 days of Wikis, Wikis allow for collaboration by letting users or members within an organization view and edit material which stays in one place, rather than having it float around cyberspace. Google, took this idea with their "google docs" which allows essentially anyone access to your document to make changes.
Wikis are also capable of making your business or organization's meetings much more efficient and effective. Agendas can be put on a Wiki and shared with all collaborators so that action items can be labeled and changes can be made simulatenously and with instant changes occurring for all those participating.
There are sites that you can use to create wikis, some cost a little bit of money, but it depends on what you would like your wiki to do. wikispaces and pbworks are a couple of those websites that allow you to use wikis.
A Wiki is essentially an editable website. The purpose of these websites is to show and share information with others that can be edited by yourself and others.
There are links within pages that allow you to travel from page to page with ease. A Wiki will create a page for you which allows you to put links into other pages that transfer you to a page that you can place information into. I like to think of it as an all-inclusive conversation.
According to Day 2 of the 21 days of Wikis, Wikis allow for collaboration by letting users or members within an organization view and edit material which stays in one place, rather than having it float around cyberspace. Google, took this idea with their "google docs" which allows essentially anyone access to your document to make changes.
Wikis are also capable of making your business or organization's meetings much more efficient and effective. Agendas can be put on a Wiki and shared with all collaborators so that action items can be labeled and changes can be made simulatenously and with instant changes occurring for all those participating.
There are sites that you can use to create wikis, some cost a little bit of money, but it depends on what you would like your wiki to do. wikispaces and pbworks are a couple of those websites that allow you to use wikis.
Friday, October 15, 2010
The official website for the drug Olanzapine probably didn’t mention the fact it might cause diabetic symptoms in patients. Another website obviously did. Commercials on TV now are required to mention possible side effects. Should drug companies be required to come clean about situations like the one with Eli Lilly’s Olanzapine in their commercial websites? Why or why not?
I am a little torn over whether or not they need to be required to come clean. I think that a business should always follow good work ethics whether it is a pharmaceutical and drug company or any other company, they should be straightforward, honest, and try not to mislead anyone. That being said, the internet is basically an open-forum where anything can be said by pretty much anyone. So it almost seems like it would be against freedom of speech to limit them from being able to post whatever they want. But to withhold life-altering information to try and make money is not ethical or moral.
I would absolutely not be opposed to official drug websites having to be held to standards regulated by the FDA so as to not mislead people. This would also require organizations to have more integrity in their work and they would be able to more confidently stand beside their product. Why should they have to be held to standards through one medium but not another? So I think that it is not unconstitutional to require commercial companies to be required to provide all of the information. They absolutely should be required to post all of the information so that it is accessible and clear on their commercial website.
I am a little torn over whether or not they need to be required to come clean. I think that a business should always follow good work ethics whether it is a pharmaceutical and drug company or any other company, they should be straightforward, honest, and try not to mislead anyone. That being said, the internet is basically an open-forum where anything can be said by pretty much anyone. So it almost seems like it would be against freedom of speech to limit them from being able to post whatever they want. But to withhold life-altering information to try and make money is not ethical or moral.
I would absolutely not be opposed to official drug websites having to be held to standards regulated by the FDA so as to not mislead people. This would also require organizations to have more integrity in their work and they would be able to more confidently stand beside their product. Why should they have to be held to standards through one medium but not another? So I think that it is not unconstitutional to require commercial companies to be required to provide all of the information. They absolutely should be required to post all of the information so that it is accessible and clear on their commercial website.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Open Source Software v Proprietary Software
Some states and some companies are turning to open source software for a variety of reasons, some mentioned in this chapter. Some companies (say Microsoft) have gone on the record against open source software. Explain some of the advantages of using proprietary software and cite your advantages with websites that take or mention these positions.
It would seem that with the capabilities of open source software there would be no more need for proprietary software because open source is extremely similar and the best part is, it's free. So why are we paying for these other forms of software rather than going with the free option? Well there are many benefits to having the proprietary software over open source.
A contributing factor that sets proprietary software above open source is that it offers technical support. If something were to go wrong with your Microsoft office suite, for example, you could call them or e-mail them and within a short amount of time have your problem remedied. Techsoup.org discusses some of the benefits of using proprietary software, specifically Microsoft Office, and one of the main benefits was the fact that there is a "company behind the code." They have developers whose full-time jobs are to improve the software and make it user-friendly and convenient for anyone. Open source does not have quite these capabilities due to the fact that their software is created and maintained by its users and other technologically minded individuals. On top of having the technological support that makes proprietary software one step ahead of open source software, programs like Microsoft Office have a definite advantage because of their familiarity. Other open source programs just do not have the popularity or reputation that the proprietary ones have that makes customers feel secure and capable.
It would seem that with the capabilities of open source software there would be no more need for proprietary software because open source is extremely similar and the best part is, it's free. So why are we paying for these other forms of software rather than going with the free option? Well there are many benefits to having the proprietary software over open source.
A contributing factor that sets proprietary software above open source is that it offers technical support. If something were to go wrong with your Microsoft office suite, for example, you could call them or e-mail them and within a short amount of time have your problem remedied. Techsoup.org discusses some of the benefits of using proprietary software, specifically Microsoft Office, and one of the main benefits was the fact that there is a "company behind the code." They have developers whose full-time jobs are to improve the software and make it user-friendly and convenient for anyone. Open source does not have quite these capabilities due to the fact that their software is created and maintained by its users and other technologically minded individuals. On top of having the technological support that makes proprietary software one step ahead of open source software, programs like Microsoft Office have a definite advantage because of their familiarity. Other open source programs just do not have the popularity or reputation that the proprietary ones have that makes customers feel secure and capable.
Saturday, October 2, 2010
becoming invisible
1. If Shirky is right, and we’re headed to a period where social media tools like YouTube, Flickr, and social networks like Facebook become “invisible,” what’s the impact on things you spend money on as consumers? Books? Movies? Music?
I think already we are starting to see a trend towards not actually buying music, movies, or books because they are so easily accessible on the internet. Whenever I want to hear a song, I just type the name of it into youtube and a few seconds later it is playing for me and many times I can choose about twenty different versions of the same song if I wanted to hear a remix or the unedited version or even a remake of it. It is similar with books and movies, although I do not think that these markets are quite at the same point as music. There is a plethora of books online through google books that one can read for free and hulu.com offers a wide range of movies and t.v. shows that you can watch for free at your convenience.
While these forms of entertainment can, for the most part, be accessed at zero cost, I think that the way customers will be spending more of their money is by buying different "media players." Whether it is an ipad, a tablet, ipod, kindle, laptops, or even phones, I think that consumers now expect to have free media, and what they are willing to spend their money on are the devices that most effectively puts that media at their disposal.
2. Consider the concept of a “community of practice.” How can such a community offer opportunities for learning?
A community of practice offers so many different opportunities for learning that it is almost too difficult to even measure how much knowledge one can gain from it. With the ability of anyone to post something that is accessible to virtually the entire world, we (as the rest of the world) have the opportunity to see and understand different aspects of life through the eyes and words of someone else. Whether these people who post information online are experts in the field about which they are posting or not, does not take away the potential for us to learn something new. We can learn things like 100 different ways to make a basket, to the history of the American flag from the eyes of a 25 year old liberal female. The opportunities to experience life and learn from the perspectives of so many different people is almost too overwhelming, but allows us to form our own perspectives and ideas and contribute to the public conversations.
I think already we are starting to see a trend towards not actually buying music, movies, or books because they are so easily accessible on the internet. Whenever I want to hear a song, I just type the name of it into youtube and a few seconds later it is playing for me and many times I can choose about twenty different versions of the same song if I wanted to hear a remix or the unedited version or even a remake of it. It is similar with books and movies, although I do not think that these markets are quite at the same point as music. There is a plethora of books online through google books that one can read for free and hulu.com offers a wide range of movies and t.v. shows that you can watch for free at your convenience.
While these forms of entertainment can, for the most part, be accessed at zero cost, I think that the way customers will be spending more of their money is by buying different "media players." Whether it is an ipad, a tablet, ipod, kindle, laptops, or even phones, I think that consumers now expect to have free media, and what they are willing to spend their money on are the devices that most effectively puts that media at their disposal.
2. Consider the concept of a “community of practice.” How can such a community offer opportunities for learning?
A community of practice offers so many different opportunities for learning that it is almost too difficult to even measure how much knowledge one can gain from it. With the ability of anyone to post something that is accessible to virtually the entire world, we (as the rest of the world) have the opportunity to see and understand different aspects of life through the eyes and words of someone else. Whether these people who post information online are experts in the field about which they are posting or not, does not take away the potential for us to learn something new. We can learn things like 100 different ways to make a basket, to the history of the American flag from the eyes of a 25 year old liberal female. The opportunities to experience life and learn from the perspectives of so many different people is almost too overwhelming, but allows us to form our own perspectives and ideas and contribute to the public conversations.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)