Wikipedia Research

I was intrigued when I came across the article on Wikipedia in this week's Collegian. It tells of the changes Wikipedia is going through to make it a more reliable site.

I was private schooled until twelfth grade when I transferred to Martin High School in Arlington. When I got there, all of my teachers were saying not to go to Wikipedia for information. I was a little shocked because I had been used to using Wikipedia, not as a source but as a type of reference.

I think it's great that Wikipedia is trying to make their site more accurate and taking away the option where anyone can edit because people would just give their opinions and not actual fact. However, some of the faculty interviewed said that they would still tell students not to use it and recommended the TCC databases instead. In all honesty, I don't like the databases! I've been through 3 database studies and still can't figure it out. I can't ever find any information with depth or detailed information. I prefer using Google as a search engine for sources but now teachers are saying that even Google is a hindrance and we should all just start on the databases...like that's going to happen.

Sites like Google and Wikipedia are, in my opinion, good search engines to start the research. Wikipedia isn't something you'd want to include in your sources but if you have a topic that's hard to understand then I think it's perfectly acceptable to use it in order to grasp the topic. After a few minutes on the site, go to a "scholarly website" to find the creditable information. Teachers should be saying THAT instead of just pushing the idea away completely.


"Wikipedia's Webs site going through changes"
By: Dea Ozegovic
Collegian Volume 22, Issue 10, Page 4

It's up in the air...literally

Tonight I was watching the news with my dad when I saw an interesting story about a 6-year-old boy and a giant balloon. I pulled up the Fort Worth Star Telegram's website and read the entire article. If you haven't read the story yet then you definitely should...it's fascinating. http://www.star-telegram.com/804/story/1688307.html

Honestly, I don't know how the parents didn't check every spot in their house. The search for the boy went on for 2 whole hours. If it had been MY son, I would've searched every closet, every room...everywhere. The fact that they didn't find him for the whole 2 hours amazes me. I also think it's weird that a little 6-year-old boy would sit still and quiet in a cardboard box for 2 hours. The article said that he felt bad after his dad yelled at him, but seriously...2 hours??? I can't wrap my mind around that one.

There's some debate about this being a hoax or not. Some think the family planned this little adventure. I don't think they would plan something like that. I saw the dad cry tears of pure joy tonight on the news because he had his son back in his arms again. I know, it's not always too hard to force tears on camera, but I think it's just a little far-fetched. It's not fair for the media to turn this ordeal around and blame the family. It was an accident, things happen....just not usually with huge airborne balloons.

Are ethics history?

After reading just a few of these ethics I started to think that bloggers and twitter users actually apply some of these ethics to their writing without even realizing it. Many times if they write a news update, they'll include a link to a video or the source to where they found the information. This would be under the ethic of identifying the source. They also usually have headlines or subjects that aren't misleading and try to find an accurate picture that isn't distorted.

I noticed that a few of the ethics were also thrown to the side, regarding several methods of online information such as forums, answer sites, blogs, and social sites like facebook and twitter. These 3 grabbed my attention quickly:
— Examine their own cultural values and avoid imposing those values on others.
— Avoid stereotyping by race, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, geography, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance or social status.
— Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.
People can be harsh! One of my friends wrote about Michael Jackson's funeral and how she was excited that the excessive news coverage was finally over. This opened up a big window for arguments and attacks on her and her beliefs. They started attacking the fact that she was a Christian and criticized her for being judgemental and hypocritical. In my opinion, she should've worded what she said more carefully; it's very easy to offend others.

I think minimizing harm is difficult to do, especially over the internet. It's hard to know if what you're talking about will bring up bad memories for others. You never know if what you're talking about will reach someone who was involved in the situation. Many people don't show good taste online and just write what they feel like writing without taking any kind of consideration into how it will affect others.

I found the last statement under the section "Be Accountable" very interesting. It says, "Abide by the same high standards to which they hold others." There is a double standard, people want to be treated with a certain respect but when it comes to their own opinion they don't care who they hurt or offend. Some people try as hard as they can to act how they expect others to act, but most are completely tasteless and rude.

Overall, I think it's about equal. I think many ethics are applied to online journalism but the ethics that I see as most important are thrown out the window, making the internet a very dangerous, harsh place.