2010年9月29日 星期三
2010年9月15日 星期三
We support the Wikipedia!
We support the Wikipedia!
(Group members:Penny, Maggie, Kyra, Millie, Tina)
Our two argeuments are:
1. Wikipedia can make immediate changes and correction.
>The founder of the Wikipedia tells a fact that a team of elites is always behind the Wiki system in order to monitor the Wiki anytime and anyhere. So, everything on Wikipedia is always work in progress.
evidence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQR0gx0QBZ4&feature=related
>There is a great number of volunteers from all over the world who always ready to add evidence, links, proof and reference to issues.
evidence: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Staff
2. The accuracy of Wikipedia is high.
>Wikipedia is more neutral. Because everyone can post what they know or think on the website.
>Encyclopaedia Brittanica may contains some biased information because Brittanica didn't display its rough draft and everything must be checked by a copy editor.
>Also, there are some unaccepttable and minor errors in Brittanica.
evidence: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2005/jan/26/schools.uk2
(Group members:Penny, Maggie, Kyra, Millie, Tina)
Our two argeuments are:
1. Wikipedia can make immediate changes and correction.
>The founder of the Wikipedia tells a fact that a team of elites is always behind the Wiki system in order to monitor the Wiki anytime and anyhere. So, everything on Wikipedia is always work in progress.
evidence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQR0gx0QBZ4&feature=related
>There is a great number of volunteers from all over the world who always ready to add evidence, links, proof and reference to issues.
evidence: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Staff
2. The accuracy of Wikipedia is high.
>Wikipedia is more neutral. Because everyone can post what they know or think on the website.
>Encyclopaedia Brittanica may contains some biased information because Brittanica didn't display its rough draft and everything must be checked by a copy editor.
>Also, there are some unaccepttable and minor errors in Brittanica.
evidence: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2005/jan/26/schools.uk2
2010年9月9日 星期四
Wikipedia or Encyclopaedia Brittanica?
I will choose the open source like wikipedia since it is better in many aspects.
First, for the quality and accuracy of the information, wikipedia provides people with loads of information that are well-monitored. There is a big team consists of elites from all over the world monitoring the whole system of wikipedia. They can see all immediate changes on web and they will check and monitor all of these immediate activities. Once they found any inappropriate content or data, they will correct it. And if there is any contraversy over any piece of data, there is a voting system which solve conflicts in a democratic way. I think this can ensure the quality and accuracy of the information uploaded. Moreover, information can be surely posted in a neutral stand since everyone can post what they know or what they reckon on the web and things will turn out neutral after may be some neccessary combinations, voting system and final changes.
For proprietary encyclopaedia like Encyclopaedia Brittanica, the quality and accuracy of information can be ensured too, however, since the sources are owned by the specific companies or organisations, data can be bias or not neutral enough for people who can reach them. This kind of sources cannot be changed by public but only by the owner of the information. Refer to the survey conducted by the Nature Magazine, errors discovered in Wikipedia were far less than those discovered in Brittanica. (Wikipedia's, 2005)
Second, for the needs of particular cultures, wikipedia can suit people from all over the world since this is an open source which can be changed by the public that come from different backgrounds and have different nationalities.
And therefore, as I mentioned above, proprietary encyclopaedia like Encyclopaedia Brittanica can only be edited by its owner, which make it not suitable for people having different cultural background. People may find that some sources cannot cope with their personal belief or stand.
Hence, I will choose the open source like wikipedia since it is a more flexible and well-monitored system and also a worldwide platform for people all over the globe to share their opinions and information.
1. Wikipedia's Accuracy Compared to Britannica . (2005 December 15) http://science.slashdot.org,
Retrieved September 11, 2010 from:
http://science.slashdot.org/science/05/12/15/1352207.shtml?tid=95&tid=14
First, for the quality and accuracy of the information, wikipedia provides people with loads of information that are well-monitored. There is a big team consists of elites from all over the world monitoring the whole system of wikipedia. They can see all immediate changes on web and they will check and monitor all of these immediate activities. Once they found any inappropriate content or data, they will correct it. And if there is any contraversy over any piece of data, there is a voting system which solve conflicts in a democratic way. I think this can ensure the quality and accuracy of the information uploaded. Moreover, information can be surely posted in a neutral stand since everyone can post what they know or what they reckon on the web and things will turn out neutral after may be some neccessary combinations, voting system and final changes.
For proprietary encyclopaedia like Encyclopaedia Brittanica, the quality and accuracy of information can be ensured too, however, since the sources are owned by the specific companies or organisations, data can be bias or not neutral enough for people who can reach them. This kind of sources cannot be changed by public but only by the owner of the information. Refer to the survey conducted by the Nature Magazine, errors discovered in Wikipedia were far less than those discovered in Brittanica. (Wikipedia's, 2005)
Second, for the needs of particular cultures, wikipedia can suit people from all over the world since this is an open source which can be changed by the public that come from different backgrounds and have different nationalities.
And therefore, as I mentioned above, proprietary encyclopaedia like Encyclopaedia Brittanica can only be edited by its owner, which make it not suitable for people having different cultural background. People may find that some sources cannot cope with their personal belief or stand.
Hence, I will choose the open source like wikipedia since it is a more flexible and well-monitored system and also a worldwide platform for people all over the globe to share their opinions and information.
1. Wikipedia's Accuracy Compared to Britannica . (2005 December 15) http://science.slashdot.org,
Retrieved September 11, 2010 from:
http://science.slashdot.org/science/05/12/15/1352207.shtml?tid=95&tid=14
2010年9月8日 星期三
Discussion: Evaluating the effects of new technologies ( Modern times)
1. What are the benefits of the new technologies (industrial machinery, feeding machine, closed circuit cameras) shown in the film? Who gains from these technologies?
I think the new technologies make things easier and more convenient for both the workers and the boss in terms of the time control on work and communication between the employer and the employees. Since the industrial machinery can fix the working processes in a very regular and steady way so the workers can do their jobs continuously. And i also think that the boss can really benefit from the technologies because he can monitor his staff at anytime and anywhere. And he can keep a close communication with his staff since he can reach the worker very quickly via the closed circuit cameras when he needs to give an order.
As for the feeding machine, I think people who use it can benefit from its automatic step-by-step processes which can feed them with different kinds of food, for example, soup first, and then main course. It is convenient for people to enjoy their meal.
2.What is the effect of these technologies on the main character’s life/mood/body?
For the boss, i think it is beneficial for him to use technologies in his company because it helps his company running smoothly in many ways, for example, the steady working speed and outcome. However, on the other hand, technologies can ruin his company very easily once they broke down because almost everything in his company rely on machines.
And for the employees, i think those technologies don't benefit them much because they are monitored by their boss even in toilet. They dont have much privacy and I think fixed system make them very tense since they have to concentrate all the time in order to catch up with the speed of the machine. And they have to repeat the same task over and over again which really make them feel bored. The main character even get crazy at the end of the film since he can't control his body movement due to the repetition of his task. And this shows the negative effect on him from using technologies
3. What effects does using computers and the internet have on your life/mood/body?
I think computers and internet definitely make my life more convenient because I can do almost everything on the net and I can search for everything on the web too. No matter how many things I need to do, I can simply get them done by several clicks on the net. However, I think they also bring me some bad things, for example, I might rely too much on computer and internet and the convenience I am enjoying might minimise the face-to-face connection between me and my friends since I can easily contact them on the net which may lower my motivation to contact my friends in person.
I think the new technologies make things easier and more convenient for both the workers and the boss in terms of the time control on work and communication between the employer and the employees. Since the industrial machinery can fix the working processes in a very regular and steady way so the workers can do their jobs continuously. And i also think that the boss can really benefit from the technologies because he can monitor his staff at anytime and anywhere. And he can keep a close communication with his staff since he can reach the worker very quickly via the closed circuit cameras when he needs to give an order.
As for the feeding machine, I think people who use it can benefit from its automatic step-by-step processes which can feed them with different kinds of food, for example, soup first, and then main course. It is convenient for people to enjoy their meal.
2.What is the effect of these technologies on the main character’s life/mood/body?
For the boss, i think it is beneficial for him to use technologies in his company because it helps his company running smoothly in many ways, for example, the steady working speed and outcome. However, on the other hand, technologies can ruin his company very easily once they broke down because almost everything in his company rely on machines.
And for the employees, i think those technologies don't benefit them much because they are monitored by their boss even in toilet. They dont have much privacy and I think fixed system make them very tense since they have to concentrate all the time in order to catch up with the speed of the machine. And they have to repeat the same task over and over again which really make them feel bored. The main character even get crazy at the end of the film since he can't control his body movement due to the repetition of his task. And this shows the negative effect on him from using technologies
3. What effects does using computers and the internet have on your life/mood/body?
I think computers and internet definitely make my life more convenient because I can do almost everything on the net and I can search for everything on the web too. No matter how many things I need to do, I can simply get them done by several clicks on the net. However, I think they also bring me some bad things, for example, I might rely too much on computer and internet and the convenience I am enjoying might minimise the face-to-face connection between me and my friends since I can easily contact them on the net which may lower my motivation to contact my friends in person.
訂閱：
意見 (Atom)