Wikipedia is the number nine site in the USA (Wolverton, 2007), because it has a lot of information that you want such as climate, math, and medical. Furthermore, this site allows you to add any information you want on it, and get any information from it. In addition, you can edit or delete your information any time you want. In general, you can say it is a free space in the internet for anyone. ”Approximately 38 million people visited the English language version of the site in December 2006. Wikipedia is also easy to find, it frequently appears at the top of many Google searches and access is completely free” (Byers, 2007, para. 3).
In my opinion, this site is a useless site for people.
First, Wikipedia may contain inaccurate information. As we know it is a free site and everyone can add to it. “It is not the number of articles available on Wikipedia that is up for debate, though. The argument amongst scholars is that information available on Wikipedia is not necessarily accurate and that the articles themselves are particularly susceptible to Internet vandalism” (Wolverton, 2007, para. 9).
Second, Wikipedia is not trustworthy site. The main problem for this site is anyone can edit any article. So, someone can edit the true information to make it untrue and the only thing you would find is last update (Lengel, 2006). “Now comes the Internet, which appears to be respectable source, but is in fact unmediated and clearly not all of it authoritative. And it is left to the Internet (Internet users) to separate the wheat from the chaff, to determine the respectability of each site. Our job as teachers is to prepare our students to make that determination” (Lengel, 2006, para. 6).
Third, some academic teachers do not accept Wikipedia as reference. If we agree that Wikipedia contains inaccurate information and is not trustworthy site, we totally agree that the site is not a reference.
Based on the above, the main purpose for any site is to spread right information or get right information or introduce a service for the people. Wikipedia contains a lot of information and you can get the information that you want, but the problem is the information that may you get would not be true. So it is not trustworthy site.
Reference:
Byers,M (2007 March, 8) Controversy over use of Wikipedia in academic papers arrives at Smith, Sophian, Smith College. Retrieve on April 23, 2008:
http://media.www.smithsophian.com/media/storage/paper587/news/2007/03/08/News/Controversy.Over.Use.Of.Wikipedia.In.Academic.Papers.Arrives.At.Smith-2765409.shtml
Wolverton, J (2007 Jan, 22) Wikipedia Wisdom, Valley Vanguard. Retrieve on April 23, 2008:
http://www.svsu.edu/clubs/vanguard/stories/1141
Lengel, J (2006, July, 2) Authority, Teaching with Technology.Retrieve on April 23, 2008:
hhttp://www.powertolearn.com/articles/teaching_with_technology/article.shtml?ID=12
Bilodeau, E (2008, January 14) Weblog. Academic banning of Google and Wikipedia misguided. Retrieve on April 23, 2008:
http://www.coolweblog.com/bilodeau/archives/003743.html
Monday, April 28, 2008
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Argument Essay
YouTube decides to close its site on January 1, 2009, forever. Imagine that is the truth; what is your feeling? Will you be happy or not? I find those topics about YouTube are very interesting to me. YouTube is “a service that lets anyone upload any video they desire, and makes it easy to share that video around the internet” (Tossel, 2006, para. 2). According to Tossell (2006), YouTube began online in May 2005; and it is hard to visit five websites without browsing YouTube. In addition he says YouTube receives about 35,000 submissions a day. On the other hand, some countries for their reasons blocked YouTube, such as Brazil, China, Morocco, Myanmar, Syria and Thailand. For example, China says YouTube is subversive, and Iran says it is immoral (CNN.com, 2008). So, some people say YouTube is the evolution of freedom and it helps people to upload or watch clips that they couldn’t watch or publish on TV; others say that YouTube is dangerous; and it affects people directly, and leads them to get bad results such as a bad attitude.
In my opinion, YouTube should control its clips before they are released.
First, YouTube should control its clips by making a fee for subscription. Many sites around the world get some money from users for joining their sites. These fees are not strange to people because they know this kind of site is for profit. In addition, they should make extra fees for people who want to publish or release clips. The extra fees would be very useful because the people who pay money will be more careful to upload any clips. Thus the number of people who want to publish will decrease. In addition, the best way to control YouTube is by paying a fee via credit card. By this method, YouTube would have the real information about the person who publishes or spreads any clips. Thus, those people would take care and be careful while publishing any clips they want.
Second, YouTube should control its clips by making a partnership with many companies to manage clips. As we know, there are a thousand clips that are published every day. So, there are hard work for YouTube to control those clips without hiring a hundreds of employees or making a deal with partnership with many providers around the world. For example, Saudi Electricity Company SEC was a very big company in Saudi Arabia, and it was hard to manage it. So, it was divided into three sections based on their work; it made partners to help it for much of its works such as digging and distribution. The past example shows us, if YouTube does the same thing, I believe that will help it to manage its clips, as it wants.
Third, the governments should have some degree of control over YouTube. Many people will disagree with governments having control over YouTube. But what I want to say is that governments should control the only big cases, which contain redlines such as religions and threats the best interest of the country. For example, imagine that someone made a movie that presented Jesus as a bad person. So, this kind of clip will make a gap between cultures, and may cause riots.
Based on the above, most people rely on YouTube as a site that provides them nice or useful clips. But there are a lot of clips that may hurt people. So, YouTube should organize their work to make it easier to manage, and maintain their site as a useful and funny site. In addition, if there is cooperation between people, companies, and government to manage this site, I believe most people and their governments will fulfill the purpose of this kind of sites.
Reference:
CNN.com. (2008, February 25). Pakistan move knocked out YouTube. Retrieved on March 27, 2008 from:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/02/25/pakistan.youtube
Tossel, I. (2006, March 24). YouTube is my tube. The Globe and Mail (Canada). Retrieved on March 24, 2008 from Lexis Nexis
In my opinion, YouTube should control its clips before they are released.
First, YouTube should control its clips by making a fee for subscription. Many sites around the world get some money from users for joining their sites. These fees are not strange to people because they know this kind of site is for profit. In addition, they should make extra fees for people who want to publish or release clips. The extra fees would be very useful because the people who pay money will be more careful to upload any clips. Thus the number of people who want to publish will decrease. In addition, the best way to control YouTube is by paying a fee via credit card. By this method, YouTube would have the real information about the person who publishes or spreads any clips. Thus, those people would take care and be careful while publishing any clips they want.
Second, YouTube should control its clips by making a partnership with many companies to manage clips. As we know, there are a thousand clips that are published every day. So, there are hard work for YouTube to control those clips without hiring a hundreds of employees or making a deal with partnership with many providers around the world. For example, Saudi Electricity Company SEC was a very big company in Saudi Arabia, and it was hard to manage it. So, it was divided into three sections based on their work; it made partners to help it for much of its works such as digging and distribution. The past example shows us, if YouTube does the same thing, I believe that will help it to manage its clips, as it wants.
Third, the governments should have some degree of control over YouTube. Many people will disagree with governments having control over YouTube. But what I want to say is that governments should control the only big cases, which contain redlines such as religions and threats the best interest of the country. For example, imagine that someone made a movie that presented Jesus as a bad person. So, this kind of clip will make a gap between cultures, and may cause riots.
Based on the above, most people rely on YouTube as a site that provides them nice or useful clips. But there are a lot of clips that may hurt people. So, YouTube should organize their work to make it easier to manage, and maintain their site as a useful and funny site. In addition, if there is cooperation between people, companies, and government to manage this site, I believe most people and their governments will fulfill the purpose of this kind of sites.
Reference:
CNN.com. (2008, February 25). Pakistan move knocked out YouTube. Retrieved on March 27, 2008 from:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/02/25/pakistan.youtube
Tossel, I. (2006, March 24). YouTube is my tube. The Globe and Mail (Canada). Retrieved on March 24, 2008 from Lexis Nexis
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)