Friday, November 18, 2011
My Driving Question-WebQuest
How do writers communicate purposefully and clearly with various audiences?
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
WebQuest worksheet & Questions
Your Role
Your Impressions
1. Which two of example WebQuests listed below are the best ones? Why?
I feel like the Grow School Greens and Ancient Egypt were the best WebQuests overall. I feel that They were very colorful and grabed my attention. I also felt they were informative and useful. Grow Schools Green was very informative and interesting. Ancient Egypt was interesting an informative. The topic grabed my attention. Could be something I could relate to.
2. Which two are the worst? Why?
I feel that Underground Raiload and Ice Cream were the worst becuase yes they were very colorful but didn't seem as beneficial. I felt they could of been more informative and factual. Underground Railroad was not as grabing and interesting as the rest.
3. What do best and worst mean to you.
Best and Worst mean different things to me. Best means the absolute suburb of all the other items in the group. It couldn't be better, sows the best qualities and offers the most. Worst to me means it is uncolorful, not factual, not useful and does not seem to be needed to be used. Best can mean the most appealing and useful as well. Worst to me could mean useless and unappealing.
 |  |  |  |
Your Impressions
| It is created by Notre Dame University. It is clearly trying to help make students be able to have healthly meals. | No contact number. | |
Where is My Hero? | I like this one. I feel like it is very imformative and you would get something out of this. Nice pictures! | Could of had a better conclusion. more color. |
Came from Bradley University. Nice photos. Seems very informative and productive. | Could of made things more interesting. more color. | |
| Love how colorful things are. catches my attention. Everyone likes ice cream. Like the flow chart idea. | More benefits. | |
Can be used by the community, parents, students. Very informative. | Could be more appealing. |
1. Which two of example WebQuests listed below are the best ones? Why?
I feel like the Grow School Greens and Ancient Egypt were the best WebQuests overall. I feel that They were very colorful and grabed my attention. I also felt they were informative and useful. Grow Schools Green was very informative and interesting. Ancient Egypt was interesting an informative. The topic grabed my attention. Could be something I could relate to.
2. Which two are the worst? Why?
I feel that Underground Raiload and Ice Cream were the worst becuase yes they were very colorful but didn't seem as beneficial. I felt they could of been more informative and factual. Underground Railroad was not as grabing and interesting as the rest.
3. What do best and worst mean to you.
Best and Worst mean different things to me. Best means the absolute suburb of all the other items in the group. It couldn't be better, sows the best qualities and offers the most. Worst to me means it is uncolorful, not factual, not useful and does not seem to be needed to be used. Best can mean the most appealing and useful as well. Worst to me could mean useless and unappealing.
Saturday, November 12, 2011
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
Social-networking ban for sex offenders: Bad call? Double entry journal
The main argument they made in this article was to ban sex offenders from social networking sites. I feel that this would be a great idea and I support it 100%.
Evidence:Every peer-reviewed study conducted by the Crimes Against Children Research Center and other scholarly organizations, as well as the report of Internet Safety Technical Task Force, has concluded that the risk of online predators is greatly exaggerated. Evidence has shown that more sexual offenders online is more dangerous. This is a proven fact! I feel that this website is completly 100% accurate and not untrue. The website had a place for discussion and for people to voice their opinion as well. I feel that sexual offenders should be completly banned from all social networking sites. I feel they should have limited to no rights when it comes to using any social networking site online. We need to keep those offenders away from our chirldren.
QUOTE: "The just-signed Illinois law banning sex offenders from social-networking sites might seem like a good idea to protect children, but it will have virtually no impact on their safety and could wind up making things worse."
REACTION:
I feel that this statement is not completly true. I do not agree. I feel that with social networking sites children do not know who they are really talking to. They could be talking to what they think is their friend, age 13, and it could be a man that is 45. This is reality and is scary for parents and teachers to face. This is an issue that needs to be faced and brought up in school systems. Sex offenders should defenitly be baned from social networking sites completly. This makes perfect sense. Why would we want a sex offender to be able to accsess a social networking site? That would be complete ludacris. We have to protect are children and our students from harm. As a young child a lot of times they do not know how to sense a harmful individual or a bad situation. Parents need to be aware of what social networking sites their children have access to. This could be a very dangerous situation if not. Always be aware of what your children have access to online.
RELATED SOURCE:
SOURCE:
Magid, Larry. CNET News. "Social-networking ban for sex offenders: Bad call?"13, Aug., 2009. Web. 8 November, 2011.
Evidence:Every peer-reviewed study conducted by the Crimes Against Children Research Center and other scholarly organizations, as well as the report of Internet Safety Technical Task Force, has concluded that the risk of online predators is greatly exaggerated. Evidence has shown that more sexual offenders online is more dangerous. This is a proven fact! I feel that this website is completly 100% accurate and not untrue. The website had a place for discussion and for people to voice their opinion as well. I feel that sexual offenders should be completly banned from all social networking sites. I feel they should have limited to no rights when it comes to using any social networking site online. We need to keep those offenders away from our chirldren.
QUOTE: "The just-signed Illinois law banning sex offenders from social-networking sites might seem like a good idea to protect children, but it will have virtually no impact on their safety and could wind up making things worse."
REACTION:
I feel that this statement is not completly true. I do not agree. I feel that with social networking sites children do not know who they are really talking to. They could be talking to what they think is their friend, age 13, and it could be a man that is 45. This is reality and is scary for parents and teachers to face. This is an issue that needs to be faced and brought up in school systems. Sex offenders should defenitly be baned from social networking sites completly. This makes perfect sense. Why would we want a sex offender to be able to accsess a social networking site? That would be complete ludacris. We have to protect are children and our students from harm. As a young child a lot of times they do not know how to sense a harmful individual or a bad situation. Parents need to be aware of what social networking sites their children have access to. This could be a very dangerous situation if not. Always be aware of what your children have access to online.
RELATED SOURCE:
I love this video becaus eit shows how social networking sites can be very dangerous. I feel that sexual offenders should not have any rights when it comes to being able to access social networking sites. To have access to a social networking site they are just going to continue offending children. This needs to stop. Sexual offfenders should not be permitted to have a facebook.
SOURCE:
Magid, Larry. CNET News. "Social-networking ban for sex offenders: Bad call?"13, Aug., 2009. Web. 8 November, 2011.
Monday, November 7, 2011
Wikipedia Reliability Worksheet
Article Title :Deinosuchus
yes
Reliable references: Definitions that seem to be factual.
Possibly unreliable references: Wikipedia
Definitely unreliable references: Wikipedia
| This article or section has multiple issues. | no |
| This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. | yes |
| The neutrality of this article is disputed. | yes |
| The factual accuracy of this article is disputed. | yes |
| This needs copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone or spelling. | yes |
| This may contain material not appropriate for an encyclopedia. | yes |
| This article only describes one highly specialized aspect of its associated subject. | yes |
| This article requires authentication or verification by an expert. | yes |
| This article or section needs to be updated. | no |
| This article may not provide balanced geographical coverage on a region. | yes |
| This is missing citations or needs footnotes. | yes |
| This article does not cite any references or sources. |
- Read through the article and see if it meets the following requirements:
3. Scroll down to the article's References and open them in new windows or tabs. Do they seem like reliable sources? (For help in determining the general reliability of a source, check out the Knowing What's What and What's Note: The 5 Ws (and 1 "H") of Cyberspace handout.)
no
Is it written in a clear and organized way? yes Is the tone neutral (not taking sides)? yes Are all important facts referenced (you're told where they come from)? no Does the information provided seem complete or does it look like there are gaps (or just one side of the story)?
Reliable references: Definitions that seem to be factual.
Possibly unreliable references: Wikipedia
Definitely unreliable references: Wikipedia
- Click on the Discussion tab. How is the article rated on the Rating Scale (Stub, Start, C, B, GA, A, FA)? What issues around the article are being discussed? Do any of them make you doubt the article's reliability?
- They say this is a featured article.
- Has been identified as one of the best articles from Wikipedia community.
- Deinosuchus is part of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles.
- The facts make me believe the article is reliable.
- A collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology.
- Rated FA-class on project scale.
- Information looks factual..
- Written by important people.
- Based on the above questions, give the article an overall ranking of Reliable, Partially Reliable or Unreliable.
- You may use a Reliable article as a source (but remember that even if a Wikipedia article is reliable, it should never be your only source on a topic!)
- You may use a Partially Reliable article as a starting point for your research, and may use some
of its references as sources, but do not us it as a source. - You should not use an Unreliable article as a source or a starting point. Research the same topic in a different encyclopedia.
How did you rank this article (Reliable, Partially Reliable or Unreliable)? Give at least three reasons to supportI rate this source partially reliable. I feel that this source has factual information. It also is ranked in the FA class. This article has also been identified as one of the best articles in Wikipedia Community. This shows me its a good article. They seem to be using a collaborative effort to improve palaeontology. I like science and this seems to be an interesting topic. I think this article overall is pretty reliable but it does not have a lot of sources or footnotes.
your answer.
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Wikipedia: Freind Not Foe: Double entry journal
3 things I learned:
1. I learned that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone. All of the information on Wikipedia is not 100% factual. It is not a reliable source. Teachers do not recommend students use Wikipedia.
2. I learned that you can have live conversations with people.
3. I learned at the bottom of he page, there are many sources you can use to write a research paper or even use to find facts.
4. Wikipedia’s goal is nothing less than “collecting the sum of human knowledge” in a vast, constantly growing
digital repository.
2 things that surprised me:
1. Wikipedia's information can be edited by anyone. WOW!
2. Wikipedia is less an unregulated free-for-all of misinformation than an open collaborative in various stages of development, depth, and sophistication depending on where one looks.
Question:
When will Wikipedia develop something on the website where no one is able to edit ANY of the information??
Related resource:
I love this video because it shows how false everything on Wikipedia can be. You are not getting the facts. Anyone can edit Wikipedia and leave you with whatever information they want you to believe. I think this video illustrates that concept perfectly.
1. I learned that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone. All of the information on Wikipedia is not 100% factual. It is not a reliable source. Teachers do not recommend students use Wikipedia.
2. I learned that you can have live conversations with people.
3. I learned at the bottom of he page, there are many sources you can use to write a research paper or even use to find facts.
4. Wikipedia’s goal is nothing less than “collecting the sum of human knowledge” in a vast, constantly growing
digital repository.
2 things that surprised me:
1. Wikipedia's information can be edited by anyone. WOW!
2. Wikipedia is less an unregulated free-for-all of misinformation than an open collaborative in various stages of development, depth, and sophistication depending on where one looks.
Question:
When will Wikipedia develop something on the website where no one is able to edit ANY of the information??
Related resource:
I love this video because it shows how false everything on Wikipedia can be. You are not getting the facts. Anyone can edit Wikipedia and leave you with whatever information they want you to believe. I think this video illustrates that concept perfectly.
Wikipedia
a. What is Wikipedia?
is a free, web-based, collaborative, multilingual encyclopedia project supported by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation. Its 20 million articles (over 3.78 million in English) have been written collaboratively by volunteers around the world. Almost all of its articles can be edited by anyone with access to the site,[ and it has about 90,000 regularly active contributors. As of July 2011, there are editions of Wikipedia in 282 languages. It has become the largest and most popular general reference work on the Internet,ranking sixth globally among all websites on Alexa and having an estimated 365 million readers worldwide. It is estimated that Wikipedia receives 2.7 billion monthly pageviews from the United States alone.Founded by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger.
b. How would you answer the question posed in this piece “How reliable can a source be when anyone can edit it?”?
When anyone can edit and save information on a web based site, the information is completly unreliable and nonfactual. The information can not be trusted to be true or factual because anyone can change it. I think personally Wikipedia has a lot of informational facts, but a lot of it is not reliable. I do think that a good bit of it is factual and true.
c. Who do the creators of Wikipedia place their trust in when it comes to weeding out misinformation?
Most wikis are set up so that it is very easy and quick to undo vandalism, so don't get too worried about any given incident.Build a community of good faith editors.The stronger a community a wiki has supporting it, and the more good content it maintains, the less of an impact a few bad edits will have on the overall quality. Good content and good community also serve to set a good example for beginning editors.
d. Why did founder Larry Sanger leave Wikipedia?
Sanger left Wikipedia in 2002, and has since been critical of the project. He articulated that despite its merits, Wikipedia lacks credibility due to, among other things, a lack of respect for expertise. After leaving the project, Sanger taught philosophy at Ohio State University and was an early strategist for the expert-authored Encyclopedia of Earth. On September 15, 2006 he publicly announced Citizendium, first envisioned as a fork of Wikipedia.It was launched on March 25, 2007. Citizendium represents an effort to create a credible and free-access encyclopedia. Sanger had aimed to bring more accountability to the internet encyclopedia model.
e. What would abuse or vandalism look like on a Wikipedia page?
Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page. Vandalism is prohibited.
f. What do the statistics quoted in the third paragraph of this piece reveal?
Reveals that 18% of people that edit Wikipedia are in a small group.
g. Why do you think Wikipedia is so successful?
Regardless of how you feel about the quality or accuracy of the content that’s being developed on Wikipedia, as a collaborative initiative using a social medium it has been very successful. Even despite some of its more recent setbacks, you can’t argue that it’s brought together a multitude of individuals with very diverse backgrounds and expertise and allowed for the creation of a product that has become, for many, a first stop on their journey to learn something new. (If that’s their only stop then they’re not doing in-depth research, but then the same could be said for any other information resource.)
h. Why might Wikipedia’s creators not want to accept advertising?
A common response to the first is that those who don’t like ads can run an ad blocker. Easier still, those who don’t like ads can log in — there’s little reason to display ads to logged in users, who probably generate a tiny fraction of pageviews. But I don’t think either of these responses will satisfy this form of the objection, as it is basically emotional. I also believe that they would not want advertising because it would promote more people to go to the website and start editing the text. They are trying to prevent this.
i. How does Wikiscanner help increase the reliability of Wikipedia entries?
WikiScanner (also known as Wikipedia Scanner) was a tool which consisted of a publicly searchable database that linked millions of anonymous edits on the free online encyclopedia Wikipedia to the organizations where those edits apparently originated, by cross-referencing the edits with data on the owners of the associated block of IP addresses.The tool's database contains 34,417,493 entries on anonymous edits (those by users who were not logged in to Wikipedia) between 7 February 2002 and 4 August 2007. Griffith stated that the database was constructed by compiling the anonymous edits included amongst the monthly public database dumps of Wikipedia. Griffith said he connects the organizations to the IP numbers with the assistance of the IP2Location, through which comparison he had found "187,529 different organizations with at least one anonymous Wikipedia edit.
At a rate of 600 words a minute, twenty-four hours a day, a person could read nearly 27,000,000 words in a month. In the month of July 2006, Wikipedia grew by over 30,000,000 words. Given this, it is unlikely for any single reader to read all of Wikipedia's new content. Reading the current incarnation at that rate would take over seven years, and by the time they were done, so much would have changed with the parts they had already read that they would have to start over. Therefore, the best way to get an idea of the bigger picture is with statistics.
is a free, web-based, collaborative, multilingual encyclopedia project supported by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation. Its 20 million articles (over 3.78 million in English) have been written collaboratively by volunteers around the world. Almost all of its articles can be edited by anyone with access to the site,[ and it has about 90,000 regularly active contributors. As of July 2011, there are editions of Wikipedia in 282 languages. It has become the largest and most popular general reference work on the Internet,ranking sixth globally among all websites on Alexa and having an estimated 365 million readers worldwide. It is estimated that Wikipedia receives 2.7 billion monthly pageviews from the United States alone.Founded by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger.
b. How would you answer the question posed in this piece “How reliable can a source be when anyone can edit it?”?
When anyone can edit and save information on a web based site, the information is completly unreliable and nonfactual. The information can not be trusted to be true or factual because anyone can change it. I think personally Wikipedia has a lot of informational facts, but a lot of it is not reliable. I do think that a good bit of it is factual and true.
c. Who do the creators of Wikipedia place their trust in when it comes to weeding out misinformation?
Most wikis are set up so that it is very easy and quick to undo vandalism, so don't get too worried about any given incident.Build a community of good faith editors.The stronger a community a wiki has supporting it, and the more good content it maintains, the less of an impact a few bad edits will have on the overall quality. Good content and good community also serve to set a good example for beginning editors.
d. Why did founder Larry Sanger leave Wikipedia?
Sanger left Wikipedia in 2002, and has since been critical of the project. He articulated that despite its merits, Wikipedia lacks credibility due to, among other things, a lack of respect for expertise. After leaving the project, Sanger taught philosophy at Ohio State University and was an early strategist for the expert-authored Encyclopedia of Earth. On September 15, 2006 he publicly announced Citizendium, first envisioned as a fork of Wikipedia.It was launched on March 25, 2007. Citizendium represents an effort to create a credible and free-access encyclopedia. Sanger had aimed to bring more accountability to the internet encyclopedia model.
e. What would abuse or vandalism look like on a Wikipedia page?
Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page. Vandalism is prohibited.
f. What do the statistics quoted in the third paragraph of this piece reveal?
Reveals that 18% of people that edit Wikipedia are in a small group.
g. Why do you think Wikipedia is so successful?
Regardless of how you feel about the quality or accuracy of the content that’s being developed on Wikipedia, as a collaborative initiative using a social medium it has been very successful. Even despite some of its more recent setbacks, you can’t argue that it’s brought together a multitude of individuals with very diverse backgrounds and expertise and allowed for the creation of a product that has become, for many, a first stop on their journey to learn something new. (If that’s their only stop then they’re not doing in-depth research, but then the same could be said for any other information resource.)
h. Why might Wikipedia’s creators not want to accept advertising?
A common response to the first is that those who don’t like ads can run an ad blocker. Easier still, those who don’t like ads can log in — there’s little reason to display ads to logged in users, who probably generate a tiny fraction of pageviews. But I don’t think either of these responses will satisfy this form of the objection, as it is basically emotional. I also believe that they would not want advertising because it would promote more people to go to the website and start editing the text. They are trying to prevent this.
i. How does Wikiscanner help increase the reliability of Wikipedia entries?
WikiScanner (also known as Wikipedia Scanner) was a tool which consisted of a publicly searchable database that linked millions of anonymous edits on the free online encyclopedia Wikipedia to the organizations where those edits apparently originated, by cross-referencing the edits with data on the owners of the associated block of IP addresses.The tool's database contains 34,417,493 entries on anonymous edits (those by users who were not logged in to Wikipedia) between 7 February 2002 and 4 August 2007. Griffith stated that the database was constructed by compiling the anonymous edits included amongst the monthly public database dumps of Wikipedia. Griffith said he connects the organizations to the IP numbers with the assistance of the IP2Location, through which comparison he had found "187,529 different organizations with at least one anonymous Wikipedia edit.
At a rate of 600 words a minute, twenty-four hours a day, a person could read nearly 27,000,000 words in a month. In the month of July 2006, Wikipedia grew by over 30,000,000 words. Given this, it is unlikely for any single reader to read all of Wikipedia's new content. Reading the current incarnation at that rate would take over seven years, and by the time they were done, so much would have changed with the parts they had already read that they would have to start over. Therefore, the best way to get an idea of the bigger picture is with statistics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)