Have you got your Wiki Barnstar badge yet?

Everyone has or will used Wikipedia at some point. It is used for word definitions, home work, referencing, general information. Everything is on Wikipedia, so why shouldn't we use it?
The English Wikipedia page was founded in 2001 and has gained 4 million articles since. It originally was set up as a free encyclopedia, open to anyone to edit or delete the articles to what they want or how they think it should be. Jimbo Wales the co-founder and promoter of Wikipedia was the first edit to the pages in 2001. 
Linking with the open access blog previously, it shows that it is free and anyone is able to access the information however, anyone is also allowed to edit the information causing it to be inaccurate information. 

Each contributor has their own page of their edits, and Wikipedia rewards them with 'Barnstars'. They are badges to place on their pages to show their hard work. It can be pictured as giving Scouts their camping badges for doing the ironing, putting up a tent, and first aid. Although it is easy to joke about these, it is taken seriously and people are proud of their accomplishments in contributing to Wikipedia. There are so many types of Barnstars available ;
The original, Random acts of kindness, Surreal, Anti-Vandalism, Anti-flame, Philosophy
...And so many more

"We do not expect you to trust us" - Wikipedia 

However, Wikipedia not being fact has relevance to Journalism. Not all the information a journalist is given is accurate, it could be manipulated, incorrect, a lie, we can never be sure on whether or not someone is truly being honest. Hope is the only answer.

So do we trust our old friend Wiki?
From the way it is available to be edited we shouldn't but it has become such a huge part of researching it would be difficult to change our ways all for the fact it may have been slightly tweaked. We just have to hope that it is true, a valid or else school kids will probably fail their homework assignments. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
http://www.brisbanegrammar.com/blogs/library/?p=290

Anytime, anywhere, open access!

Searching the internet for academic publishing, and peer-reviewed scholarly journals has never been easier with the unrestricted access provided online. Authors publish their work online allowing access for everyone and anyone to read it, costing nothing. Authors get paid by research funders to do research, therefore publishing their articles gets used quicker and it can reduce publication delays. However, is giving your work out to the world for everyone to see, a good idea?

Schools would not agree to free work online, for students were not working to their potential best as they had got it from some one else. It could be argued as that open access is harmful, almost along the same pathway as theft. We would not actually be paying for someone else's stuff so is that stealing? Arguably, those who are not academic scholar should not be able to have access to the publishing's for it is not necessarily needed.

However, as a journalist it is quite good to read articles and other input on particular topics, without plagiarism- of course. If the work online is free it is quite useful for a normal cost for particular journals or articles is far more than what people would want to pay. Especially university students who'd rather spend their money partying than buying books they could easily get for free. Bargain?

The open access movement mentions articles and journals however it could be seen as piracy of films, TV shows, and music? We can download music online for free, watch our favourite shows and films online by streaming. Only particular websites allow this to happen however, somehow it will happen. Lime-wire was used to download music illegally, with no funds but eventually was banned, will this happen to all open access sites? 

If work is out there for us to read, it is not illegal and not copyrighted then surely it is not going to cause harm. The illegal and piracy issues is a criminal act, and always known and spoken about but will it ever change? besides we are only human who doesn't want a freebie?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_access
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/overview.htm

Cyberstalking

When it comes to social networking we presume it is safe, for we choose who we have as friends on Facebook, who we follow on Twitter and who can see our profiles on Instagram. However, does that mean that they cannot be seen? 

The word 'stalking' can mean a regular check on a friends' Facebook to see what they've been up to, or daily tweets to celebrities. But, it doesn't stop there, a persons curiosity can become dangerously obsessive. 

Cyber-stalking is becoming more common and has many different ways in which it occurs. False accusations, threatening emails, black mail, consistent hate crime are the most assumed types. It can be taken to higher levels, by having personal pages being set up targeted at victims of stalking, strangers posing as friends and arranging to meet, attaching viruses to damage computers are other ways in which cyber-stalkers work. 

Media often announces when celebrities have been stalked, mainly by a crazed fan, therefore they get restraining orders however, it is rare we hear how regular cyber-stalking occurs. 

Many could ask, why? Why would you want to cause harm on others, especially those who are young and innocent? They are pathological obsessive, jealous, bored, enjoy the entertainment of others feeling inferior, they can almost be considered as delusional. 

Younger girls receive sexual harassment cyber-stalking. Some cases have shown that older men have pretended to be younger girls or boys and befriended a girl, to arrange a meeting. It never ended happily. It is worrying for we can be who ever we want to be online Previous blog but so can everyone else. 

Not just strange adults, but classmates cause cyber-bullying. For example, Amanda Todd, 15 was a victim of cyber-bullying. She ended her life due to harassment of classmates putting revealing photos of her on her own social media.

It is not just the younger generation being cyber-stalked. According to BBC 'The Head teachers union' is worried about the increasing cyber-bullying towards teachers. 

"We have had incidents where teachers have been subjected to abuse for very long periods of time and have needed professional help on dealing with those issues."

The British Crime Survey 2006 estimates up to 5 million people experience stalking per year but there are no official statistics on who is cyber-stalked. People are not reporting being stalked online as a major crime. 

Bedfordshire University have brought together a 'National Centre for Cyber-stalking' to help, understand and sort the problem. 

If you are being cyber-stalked the best solution according to 'The Guardian' is to report, get support, and gather your evidence. 

http://www.beds.ac.uk/research/irac/nccr

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/apr/08/cyberstalking-study-victims-men

Who will I be today?

How is identity formed? 

Our families, communities, genders, class, political views, beliefs, sub-cultures and interests have somewhat everything to do with who we are. Although we may be these people, does that mean we can't be anyone else? 

We present ourselves in the way we want to be identified as, rather than who we actually are when it comes social media. Our own identity is often shadowed over by society’s stereotypical ideas of how we should be, but also by past experiences of our relatives and peers. Social networking is a main example of (RE)-self-presentation as we update who we are. Facebook is today’s most popular source of social networking, and this allows us to hide, expand and change our identity.

If we were to take a step into the past and re-read our old status updates, see the photos and the random groups that we liked, we would see how much we have changed from one person to another. This is may be considered as growing up as our interests and choice of lifestyle adjust continuously but changing our interests in one thing but changing our whole personality is another.

Goffman said :"Sex, age, race are extremely difficult to conceal or manipulate in face to face interaction. Although the rest - clothing, posture, speech pattern, facial expression, body gesture and relatively more manipulable."

Social media gives a chance to become someone different. Chat rooms allow members to talk differently to how they would it real life. We can have so many split personalities online. Are you a flirty, girly, up for a good time girl or really are you shy, but mask yourself over with this new image. Are you really as aggressive as you think, public online social fights but in reality would it actually happen?

If a profile photo is of you and friends, was that just because you liked it, or subconsciously to show you have friends, attempting to show and possibly gain popularity?

We have to opportunity to tag and un-tag images and videos now, therefore if we do not like the photo we can easily remove it which suggests vanity and wanting to appear as good as possible to others. 

You have a bad hair day, a friend caught you on camera.. NO NO NO that does not stay on your profile.

It is not just networking. Gaming have options for character choice, therefore we are able to reform our self image to something more 'warrior' like. Xbox gaming communities allow tags and names to express how you think you are, or could be. Self (RE)-presentation is said to be 'A romantic spy-story into infosphere'. Characters are the behind the computer who set the stages of the action. The audience complying with these stories are able to interact with characters and create more fiction.

"The postmodern conception of identity is indeed very seductive and theatrical; it suggests that we can never know ourselves and are in a perceptual state of becoming." - Tanya Kryzuinska

'On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog' - The New Yorker

It is a strange feeling knowing we can change our identities, not completely but they are adjustable. We can hide who we actually are, or we can express it.  In reality we may be completely opposite, or exactly the same but through social media, you can be whoever you want. Just get yourself a personal homepage, add some colour and photos, talk away and see who you become. 

The facebook update.

Will Facebook ever die?

Do you remember these social networking sites we so dearly loved?

• Bebo
• Myspace
• Diaspora
• Hi5
• Friendster

Where did they go? 

They faded out and a new improved one shone out. Facebook has become a huge phenomenon in our lives today, however there is no saying whether it will just fade away just how the others did. They are still around, and still available but if you were to ask "Oh, do you have Bebo?" The reaction would not quite be the same as if it was a friend request on Facebook. 

Reality is, most people would have deleted or forgotten their log in details for other networking sites due to Facebook being so popular. 
It could also have something to do with embarrassment. Do we really want to see what we spoke like, remember how badly we dressed or even see friends we don't even speak to anymore? NO, we do not. 

John Pavley believes Facebook will get to 2 billion users by 2014. Except it has its consequences  it will kill the site. "Facebook isn't too big to fail."

If we could make a social networking site better than Facebook, what would it have on it to make it THAT much better? 

Facebook has... 

• Status updates                                              
• Photo and Video sharing
• Chat (Instant messages)
• Direct messages
• Events
• Pages and Groups
• Birthday announcements
• Profile pages
• Games

Facebook doesn't have...

• Skins
• Tweets - Able to chat to Celebrities
• More cloud storage

If I were to create social networking site of my own, I would not want it to be much more different to Facebook. I know that Twitter and Facebook should not join together as it would get too much. So what could I include? 

I suppose having a change of colour on your profile would show originality and creativity. Cloud storage would be useful for resources and it could be seen as cheaper for the company. Facebook mentioned the idea of having a 'dislike' button as well as 'like' button.. this could make for a more interesting status. 

There are bad issues with Facebook - Adverts. Who actually pays attention to them? We don't use them, look at them, we do not actually need them. 

Terms & Conditions. 

We NEED privacy. 

Trying to decide on what it needs, should have and what should just be deleted is difficult. Maybe there should be just one for status's (twitter) one for just photos (Flickr) one for just games (any gaming site). It would be hard to separate each app individually now we are so used to all in one. I would not want to change Facebook, I use it daily. It keeps me up-to date, people from school are still in contact and without it there is a certainty that there would not be much contact at all through lack of time. It is just easy to log on, check it, comment, chat and log out. Facebook may be considered an anti-social idea to some as many spend hours on Facebook, some just even refreshing the home page to see the next story, others chatting and gaming. Spending hours on it talking online rather than face-to-face may be different from the older days before social networking but if Facebook were to die out...

Where would we go? 

http://allfacebook.com/facebook-2-billion_b101639
http://www.facebook.com/
http://twitter.com/

No time to hide, they've already seen us.

Ever felt like you were being watched? 

Maybe not in person but we are all under surveillance. Parents watch over their children playing to keep them from harm and stop them doing wrong. It works the same with police and crime control, consumer activities, work environments and traffic monitoring. In some cases surveillance is a great idea, CCTV can catch the criminals, speed camera can spy on riot drivers but that doesn't mean we want to be observed all the time. It is most likely that our actions are always seen you could almost place it as the same category as Big Brother. People are being watched by the public, every move, every sound, everything is shown, however they know they are being viewed causing the Hawthorne effect. 

But.. what about not knowing? 

Using the web causes cookies on the browser therefore actions are tracked to what sites you go on or what you research. Google keeps your data history. All them questions you were to embarrassed to ask that you thought Google could help you with have been seen. Concerning isn't it?

The worst could be knowing that social networking can be monitored. What you write as your status, all the photos and videos you post onto Facebook are more than likely being seen. Not necessarily read and registered, as the Facebook servers will not want to know 'What's on your mind?' however, knowing they can see your public thoughts who you can only hope only spread to your friends. 

"When gossip spreads to the internet, it can spiral out of control" Daniel J Solave. 

The answer could be setting your profile to private, but does that really make much of a difference? Our private lives aren't really that private. 

 

Did you read the Terms and Conditions when you joined? Did anyone?

We don't, we merely presume that what we say is only for friends or followers but it does not seem to be that way.  

Brief versions of the T&Cs for Facebook and Twitter... 

1) You own all of the content you post, but you specifically give us the permission to use any IP content (photos&videos).

2) When you delete content, it may be removed from your profile but may persist in back up copies. 

3) When you publish content using the public setting, it means that you are allowing everyone including people off of facebook to access your information. 

4) NO SPAM

5) NO VIRUSES 

6) NO CYBER-BULLYING, HARASSMENT, OR INTIMIDATION

7) NO VIOLENT, PORNOGRAPHIC, THREATENING CONTENTS

8) NO FALSE INFORMATION

9) NO ONE UNDER THE AGE OF 13

10) KEEP YOUR INFORMATION UP TO-DATE

1) You are responsible for your use of the services for content posted - able to be viewed by others.

2) Changes occur from time to time without notice to you. Twitter may even temporarily or permanently stop providing a service.

3) Doesn't support or guarantee the accuracy or truth of the content posted by services.

4) Doesn't monitor or control content, it's your own risk.

5) Have the right to post anything.

6) Grant Twitter a world-wide exclusive, royalty free license to ..use/copy/reproduce/process/adapt/modify/publish/transmit and display your content in media.

7) May modify or adapt your content in order to distribute it over computer networks.

8) Protected by copyright.

It is not just social networking but we have terms and conditionals for everything. Shopping online, phone updates, contracts, gaming, travelling, etc. 

Own photo print shot. 

They may have right to do this. However it does not always mean that they would do it. Although it's a scary thought that what we post could be posted somewhere else and we have no control over it. All because we were too lazy to read the rules. 

http://www.facebook.com

https://twitter.com/

Yesterday we were human, today we're robots.

Today we are seeing an ever closer connection between humans and digital technology. Previous blogs consider the ideas of human and technology intimacy in our bodies, but what about our minds?
We think all day, every day about life, people, relationships, music, what we'll have for dinner, everything goes around our minds constantly but what about machines? Would you believe that they think too?
The possibility of a machine actually thinking sounds bizarre for they are programmed, so everything they do is controlled but is it? 


Alex Turing invented the 'Turing test' to discover whether machines could think. The test involves a judge who must determine who is the human and who is the machine. All the participants are separated and if the judge cannot tell the computer from human then, the computer has passed the test.

Hal 9000 '2001, A Space Odyssey' was the artificial intelligence in a series that could control systems, and interact with humans. This may have been a fictional character but many people had theories believing this would be the future of computing. 

"Machines will be capable, within twenty years, of doing any work a man can do" - Herbert. A. Simon, Carnegie Mellon University.

The films idea of this technology was too optimistic, having lip reading and commonsense was still fiction, although we do have the advances of voice recognition on smartphones.
Similarly to Hal, there is the known computer program called 'Chatterbot' to provide intelligent    conversation with human uses by audio or text. 

"The development of an artificially conscious entity may happen without our lifetimes" Robert Pepperall, 2003 

So, what is a robot?
When the word robot comes to mind, what do we picture?
A machine moving around in a laboratory or factory? 
A computer?
A mechanical man? Woman? or dog? 
Data from Star Trek? 
All of them. 
We have industrial robots who use a mechanical limb to move about. They perform repetitive tasks that humans can do and some that are too dangerous for humans. Robots are being blamed for unemployment in industries as they are replacing workers. 
They can be used for war, fighting purposes for bomb disposal and marines fighting platforms.
Although being used for these series tasks, they are also used for entertainment. Robot Wars was the television series where individuals would create their own robots to fight others. 
There are also 'expressive robots'. Rodney Brookes created 'Baxter' a robot who can interact with human workers in industrial tasks. 

There are many films that involve the development of robots; 

• The American film 'Short Circuit', 1986. 'Johnny Five' was a realistic approach of a robot who was 'alive'. 
• Data (Star Trek) the fictional android with amazing computing intelligence with aspects of human behaviour. 
• The Terminator, 1984, a cyborg assassin programmed to exterminate the human race, Although being an assassin robot Arnold Schwarzenegger is idealized by men.
• WALL.E, 2008, Disney Pixar prediction of our future.

We do not know what will occur in the future, we can only predict. Robots are an important part of our lives, without the machines certain tasks would not get done. Whether or not machines can actually think for themselves is always going to be questioned. We could ask ourselves if it is really us who are thinking and not someone else controlling our thoughts, so are we machines? 


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/blog/startups/2012/10/rodney-brooks-rethink-robotics-elderly.html?page=all
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwBmPiOmEGQ
http://www.psych.utoronto.ca/users/reingold/courses/ai/turing.html