By: Anita Hamilton
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1731516,00.html?CNN=yes
In Introduction to Library Research and Technology we recently discussed the idea of information overload -- feeling overwhelmed by TOO much information seeping into our email accounts and in our search results. This feeling applies only too perfectly to the evolution of facebook.com. Keeping up with the applications, quizzes, ratings, etc. is becoming incredibly difficult. A few weeks ago I had resigned to trying to keep up with everything that was being thrown at me in my facebook account. And just this week, at dinner with my friends on Monday, they began excitedly talking about the new "flair" application and desperately wanted to know why I had not added this application that was "so much fun!"
Anita Hamilton wrote the article, "Suffering From Facebook Fatigue?" and seems to recognize this issue with the social network. Hamilton explains how the applications have become a vicious cycle because in order to add them, you have to invite more friends to add them. As a result, those friends send you another invitation to add the same or another application in return. In order to keep up and keep your inbox up to date, you have to check your facebook account on a daily basis just to weed out the junk. It can become very frustrating.
Hamilton addresses another issue that I recently found to be true as I spent yesterday afternoon playing catch up with my facebook friends. Advertisers frequently create icons that look like the "ok" button or "next" button or "accept" button. These disguised links can bring to user to an undesired location leaving them feeling confused.
I was happy to see that the author is feeling the same frustrations with the network that I am because none of my friends appear to be plagued by this constant weeding and pulling and adding and sending and inviting.
One of my biggest problems with the facebook community is the applications that allow you to rank friends by popularity. It resembles an immature adventure back to the superficially judgemental days of middle and high school. On my facebook account, I have recently moved up the social ladder to "social butterfly." Are we actually ranking people? And are we actually doing it according to how many "friends" we have in an online community?
Nevertheless, despite these frustrations and annoyances, I continue to facebook. Is it addictive?
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
False Information on the Web
I was obviously aware that there is false information on the web, but I didn't realize that there were so many people doing it in subtle ways on purpose, and doing it in a way that shows that they are intentionally fooling web-surfers who visit their site.
I can understand the political reasons for creating counterfeit websites. If the government or organization is involved with something that a person doesn't agree with, then a good way to publicize the counter-information may be to create a similar site that readers could stumble upon accidently and as a result, discover a different side of the information; however, withholding the information that the site is not the official site does not seem like an ethical way to inform others in my opinion. These sites should be up front about their purpose to argue against the government or organization's program because that supports their argument that they are a trustworthy source. How can researchers consider the information valid on a website whose creators have lied about their own identity and initially portrayed themselves and their site to be something that it ultimately was not?
But, when the counterfeit websites are obviously giving false information it can be humorous. The other day I was searching for diets that could help me get into quick shape for the summer. I clicked on one of the first google results and found a diet and consisted of basically water and cardboard. Day four's meal plan does not even include a meal! On the last day the dieter is told to gorge him or herself only to return back to day one the following day. It made me laugh and brought me back to reality a little bit -- be healthy, not a yo-yo dieter.
As far as the false email information -- I thought everyone knew that. Maybe its because I grew up with email and the internet. The information included here seems like its more for the older generations who are learning how to use the internet later in life. Ever since I opened my first email account, there were always people telling me not to believe what I get in emails, and basically to ignore forwards, "warnings," and "charities," which I have been doing since day one and what I similarly do with forwarded text messages now.
I like that the author wrote, "Can we all say photoshop?" because it can get frustrating when so many people in America seem to believe everything they see, but in a world with technology like photoshop, we can't!!
I can understand the political reasons for creating counterfeit websites. If the government or organization is involved with something that a person doesn't agree with, then a good way to publicize the counter-information may be to create a similar site that readers could stumble upon accidently and as a result, discover a different side of the information; however, withholding the information that the site is not the official site does not seem like an ethical way to inform others in my opinion. These sites should be up front about their purpose to argue against the government or organization's program because that supports their argument that they are a trustworthy source. How can researchers consider the information valid on a website whose creators have lied about their own identity and initially portrayed themselves and their site to be something that it ultimately was not?
But, when the counterfeit websites are obviously giving false information it can be humorous. The other day I was searching for diets that could help me get into quick shape for the summer. I clicked on one of the first google results and found a diet and consisted of basically water and cardboard. Day four's meal plan does not even include a meal! On the last day the dieter is told to gorge him or herself only to return back to day one the following day. It made me laugh and brought me back to reality a little bit -- be healthy, not a yo-yo dieter.
As far as the false email information -- I thought everyone knew that. Maybe its because I grew up with email and the internet. The information included here seems like its more for the older generations who are learning how to use the internet later in life. Ever since I opened my first email account, there were always people telling me not to believe what I get in emails, and basically to ignore forwards, "warnings," and "charities," which I have been doing since day one and what I similarly do with forwarded text messages now.
I like that the author wrote, "Can we all say photoshop?" because it can get frustrating when so many people in America seem to believe everything they see, but in a world with technology like photoshop, we can't!!
Thursday, April 10, 2008
"International Technology Report sees Denmark at Top"
By: Joshua Hill
Thursday, April 10, 2008
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2596
An indepedendent news source in Canada reported on the results of the Global Information Technology Report today, announcing Denmark's rise to the top of the international assessment. The reporter, Joshua Hill, calls the report "the world's most respected assessment of the impact of information and communication technology on the development process and competitiveness across the planet."
The assessment evaluates how different countries are working to implement technology in their economies; essentially, how technology can impact business, economy, and individuals through social networks and communities. The report calls for other countries to follow Denmark's lead in the application of technology and communication in every aspect of our lives stating that "the Danish government actually cared about the implementation of technology in their country."
The update also gave the results of past reports, informing that Denmark moved up two spaces since the last assessment in 2003, showing their effort in the continuation of improvement.
It is also interesting to see that most of the top 10 spots are occupied by Nordic countries such as Sweden, Finland, Netherlands, Iceland and Norway.
The article also reports that it was a "bit of a surprise" to see the US at number 4 -- 3 spots higher than the last assessment. I wonder why this would come as a surprise. As an American I feel as though technology is becoming an increasingly prominent part of our lives on a daily basis. I would like to know more about why this Canadian reporter's opinion is what it is to gain a better understanding of an outside opinion of America and its approach to technology implementation. I could not help but notice that Canada's rank in the evaluation has not been reported, information that I believe, whether positive or negative, Canadians who are reading this report, would prefer to be aware of.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2596
An indepedendent news source in Canada reported on the results of the Global Information Technology Report today, announcing Denmark's rise to the top of the international assessment. The reporter, Joshua Hill, calls the report "the world's most respected assessment of the impact of information and communication technology on the development process and competitiveness across the planet."
The assessment evaluates how different countries are working to implement technology in their economies; essentially, how technology can impact business, economy, and individuals through social networks and communities. The report calls for other countries to follow Denmark's lead in the application of technology and communication in every aspect of our lives stating that "the Danish government actually cared about the implementation of technology in their country."
The update also gave the results of past reports, informing that Denmark moved up two spaces since the last assessment in 2003, showing their effort in the continuation of improvement.
It is also interesting to see that most of the top 10 spots are occupied by Nordic countries such as Sweden, Finland, Netherlands, Iceland and Norway.
The article also reports that it was a "bit of a surprise" to see the US at number 4 -- 3 spots higher than the last assessment. I wonder why this would come as a surprise. As an American I feel as though technology is becoming an increasingly prominent part of our lives on a daily basis. I would like to know more about why this Canadian reporter's opinion is what it is to gain a better understanding of an outside opinion of America and its approach to technology implementation. I could not help but notice that Canada's rank in the evaluation has not been reported, information that I believe, whether positive or negative, Canadians who are reading this report, would prefer to be aware of.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
"Can Wikipedia Ever Make the Grade?"
I have frequently gone to Wikipedia for information. While in college, many professors have advised against taking any information obtained from the site as credible; however, it has always been a great place to get at least the "basics" of a topic. Although I have never used Wikipedia as a "source" in bibliographies for research papers, it is usually the first site I go to to get information that lays the groundwork for the topic I plan on researching.
I think that "Dr. al-Halawi's" test on Wikipedia was brilliant. What better way to find out if the site is credible than to post information that you know is false and monitor how long it takes before the information is deleted, or if it is even deleted at all. However, in agreement with the article, although the false information was deleted within a few hours, what about the surfers who absorbed that false information during those few hours? There is no way to inform that the information was invalid.
While many professors and others with doctorates in particular fields may be encouraged to contribute to the contents of the site, one may still question whether they will because of financial factors. Is there any compensation for these educated people who may or may not contribute? If so, the percentage may raise, if not, what motivation do they have when there are several scholarly journals who are willing to compensate them for their troubles in research.
Overall, while most of the information posted on Wikipedia may be valid, it still should not be considered a reliable source because of it's openness to the public. Because anyone can post whatever they choose -- even if it only stays up for a few hours-- one should not rely solely on Wikipedia for information. In my own research, however, I will continue to consider it a preliminary source as I begin research.
I think that "Dr. al-Halawi's" test on Wikipedia was brilliant. What better way to find out if the site is credible than to post information that you know is false and monitor how long it takes before the information is deleted, or if it is even deleted at all. However, in agreement with the article, although the false information was deleted within a few hours, what about the surfers who absorbed that false information during those few hours? There is no way to inform that the information was invalid.
While many professors and others with doctorates in particular fields may be encouraged to contribute to the contents of the site, one may still question whether they will because of financial factors. Is there any compensation for these educated people who may or may not contribute? If so, the percentage may raise, if not, what motivation do they have when there are several scholarly journals who are willing to compensate them for their troubles in research.
Overall, while most of the information posted on Wikipedia may be valid, it still should not be considered a reliable source because of it's openness to the public. Because anyone can post whatever they choose -- even if it only stays up for a few hours-- one should not rely solely on Wikipedia for information. In my own research, however, I will continue to consider it a preliminary source as I begin research.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)