Skype or Hype

Skype has entered the world of digital communication as it acts as a software which allows calls over the Internet. Its effectiveness comes in its ability to display the person you are communicating with on screen through the use of a camera. As people become tired of constant conversation on their telephones, Skype is new and original and a breathe of fresh air. Skype is a very easy to install software that is free of charge. It also works behind many firewalls that often block such programs. It also allows country to country communication to happen much more easily and cheaper than over a phone. Discussions or lessons involving many people in a classroom setting can be conducted through the use of Skype as the instructor acts as the center of attention.

Although Skype provides a plethora of positive aspects there are many problems that can arise. Quality is an important issue; the sound and picture quality can be thrown off by differences in Internet connection by the users. Also it can only be used with computer and Internet access as well as access to a mic and camera. These are parts that many people do not own, limiting the software's effectiveness. Another disadvantage is if a teacher is running a classroom through Skype there are limitations to how much of the classroom she can see. If a student has a question or is fooling around during class the teacher often times cannot respond to these situations very quickly.

Learning through Skype?

Skype is a very useful tool for communicating with other people, and it can be used in many ways including as a learning tool. Skype could be very useful in the classroom if it were used when a professor is sick or injured and cannot make it to class. He or she could them hold class over Skype so that the students would not have to miss that day's lecture. This could also work the other way around, if the professor was willing. If a student could not make it to class, the professor could have the lecture for all the other students while also having Skype open so that the missing student could be present through it. This would probably only work in small, close-knit classes because otherwise there are too many students missing class every day to be able to Skype them all. It could also be used to facilitate small group discussions. Skype also has a conference call feature, so it would be possible for students to work together from home. Professors could also assign small group projects and then use Skype to check in with the students. In these ways Skype is a very useful and effective tool in the classroom.

However, Skype is not necessarily made for classroom type settings and this is quite apparent in its drawbacks. Skype works better for 1 to 1 or small group connections because it is hard to see and hear otherwise on the small computer camera and microphone. Skype would be hard to use in a lecture style class, unless none of the students asked questions. It would be very hard to ask a question to a professor over Skype because the microphone would not be able to pick up the noise form far away. The professor also would not be able to see the whole class, as the computer's camera cannot span an entire lecture hall let alone provide clear pictures. There are also times when Skype freezes up which would cause problems in a lecture, especially if the students are not able to inform the professor that they did not hear that last part. Skype has many limitations that do not allow it to be used very effectively for large group communication.

To Skype or Not To Skype

Skype is a great tool to use for communicating with others online via a video conference. Because it is so easy to use and well-known, it has become extremely popular and has even been considered for use in the classroom. But just like everything else, there are pros and cons to using Skype in the classroom. It is safe to say that enough people know how to use Skype, so there would not have to be much of a support team to keep Skype running during class, should something go wrong with it. In addition to usability, it is pretty easy to setup, and Skype accounts are free. So, schools would not have any costs associated with using Skype, outside of equipment costs.

However, Skype is not all that practical in a classroom setting, if the school does not have the right equipment. One cannot just flip a computer screen around, which has a camera attached to it, and expect a classroom of students to easily communicate with the teacher. Most screens are too small, and even with a projector, there is only one microphone attached to the computer, which is only good for a few feet from the computer. Additionally, it is not necessary to use Skype unless the teacher is a reasonable distance from the classroom. Otherwise, using Skype would just create unnecessary communication difficulties.

Skype: The Up’s and Down’s

The use of Skype’s video communication carries several positives. For one, it allows people to better communicate over long distances; in business, Skype can be used to connect a distributor in America with a factory owner in China. Video conversation allows people to see the speaker with his/her movements and gestures. This allows for the receiver to better understand a speaker, where sometimes confusion occurs over normal phone conversation. Many examples can be found showing the greatness in Skype video communication.

Unfortunately Skype has a few issues. While Skype is currently free to operate, there are several start-up costs. For instance, one must a microphone, a web camera, a computer with a fast processor, and a high-speed Internet connection. These costs make Skype too expensive for some people to use. Also, Skype does not work well in large groups. It is difficult to see and hear everybody in a large group with one web cam and one microphone. In addition, because of the large bandwidth Skype requires it has a tendency to freeze the computer and cause confusion and frustration. Regardless of these negatives Skype is a pretty useful tool, and is nice to have.

Skype In The Classroom

There are many benefits of using Skype in the classroom. For example, a teacher could teach a class from anywhere in the world. No matter where they are at any given time, they would still be able to contact their class over Skype. Also, if you were sick and had to miss class for one day or an extended period of time you could still see your lectures. That way, you wouldn't have to get behind and feel bad about missing classes. Viewing class via Skype would also make going abroad much cheaper. If someone didn't have enough money to pay for studying abroad programs, they could take classes on Skype from teachers in different countries.

Although using Skype in the classroom is beneficial it also has many negative aspects. It would cause students to have a more distant relationship with their teachers. It is already hard enough to make good relationships with college teachers because they have so many students. Having classes on Skype would make that even harder. Another important negative aspect of using Skype in the classroom is the level of distraction. Yes, using Skype sounds like a good idea in theory, but with recent technology students already have such a high level of distraction in any class. If they were watching their lectures online, nothing at all would be stopping them from multitasking and therefore not paying close attention to what they should be learning.

Teaching With Skype

Teaching with Skype represents yet another way in which education is incorporating technology into the classroom and comes with numerous advantages. One such advantage is convenience as teachers can be in virtually any place, assuming they have a connection to the internet, while they teach their students, who eventually may not even need to leave their home but could rather sign onto their computer at home. Students would thus not be limited to the schools located near their house as they could be taught by instructors thousands of miles away. The program also allows teachers to multitask while they teach as they have spare time while the students are working on their assignments. As the program develops, many of these advantages will be enhanced while many more will become apparent.

Despite some of the advantages created by Skype, the idea of using the program in classrooms is laced with a myriad of problems. One obvious disadvantage during our use of the program in class was the sound quality as the teacher had trouble hearing most of the students speak. Communication is in general more difficult when trying to speak to a video screen rather than an actually person as one cannot also enjoy many of its basic aspects, which includes eye contact. Another problem it creates is the elimination of privacy as a student could not ask a question without having the entire class hear it or the answer. Taking the teacher out of the classroom takes the personality out of the aspect of learning, which could easily take away from the quality of one's education.

Skype: For your viewing pleasure

Skype has become one of the largest forms of video communication in the world bringing people from different nations, states, even dorm rooms together online to converse. This software has many pros allowing people to communicate effectively over long distances. The software allows people from different countries to talk to friends or relatives while also seeing a video of them. Skype is a type of extension from a typical telephone call. In normal calling, one has no access to viewing the body language or facial expressions being used; however, with Skype it allows for almost a full encounter. The software can also be used in education. Many people from other countries would like to experience a full education but are unable to travel to a major university to access this education, but many universities offer Skype or Youtube videos of the lectures allowing almost anyone access to the knowledge.

Although Skype has many pros, the program had many negative aspects as well. The program is especially problematic in large groups. As demonstrated in our class, there were many technical problems with Skype. Skype froze many times and in order for our class to communicate we had to almost yell for the teacher to hear or understand us. Skype is a very good software for person to person conversation, but with use in large groups it is very difficult to coordinate. The start up costs of Skype are also troublesome. In order to use Skype, one needs to have a computer, preferably with a fast processor, and Internet, preferably high speed. In order to use the video and audio functions of Skype, one needs a webcam and a microphone. These start up costs and technical issues make Skype limited in its uses and functions; however, for the right purposes and groups, Skype can be very useful.

Pros and Cons of Skype

There are many benefits to using the program Skype in educational settings. It can help promote collaborated learning through the use of the internet. Skype allows professors to interact with students without being in the same space. This means professors can teach students from anywhere, which is beneficial because it eliminates the need for professors to travel to where the students are located. They simply need to both connect to the internet at the same time and have a webcam and microphone. Skype could be used to lecture students in a more convenient way for the professor, and therefore would be helpful in classroom settings.

While Skype could be useful in education, it has drawbacks as well. It may be useful for professors to lecture through Skype, but it also gives them less control over their students. Since it is difficult for the professor to hear students unless they speak into the microphone, the professor would not know if side conversations were going on in the back, limiting knowledge from being gained. It is also difficult for professors to lead discussions through Skype. Therefore, Skype is best used for one on one communication.

Skype.. Not a lecture

Skype is a powerful tool. It could be used by educators on US campuses to answer individual questions and to talk to students from abroad. Skype is key to helping the internal workings of various colleges and universities in video conferencing. The University of Michigan's College of Engineering currently runs a joint engineering program with a university in Shanghai. The various faculty in Ann Arbor and Shanghai communicate extensively using Skype. They do not use it for teaching.

However, Skype while useful in the inner workings of the business side of teaching, it simply cannot teach our lectures. Our own experience yesterday showed us that when the teacher tried the novelty of teaching through Skype, the result was a failure. What was the general response to being taught from a distance? We laughed at it. It was a joke and because the teacher was unable to actually be present and had only a limited view of what was going on, she lost the focus of her class. Then while being unable to fully see what was happening in her class, we could not effectively understand what tasks she was assigning.. How many times did we have to ask her to re-pronounce the words she wanted searched. Communicating over Skype was simply too accident prone to effectively use in teaching a class.

The idea of remote teaching has been bounced around for a long time now. The premise is a good one for the lazy. Why should I have to go to the classroom when I could stay home and teach from there? This was what inspired a Japanese company to try and create remote controlled "teacher" bots. But so far it is nothing more than a glorified version of the Skype lesson we experienced yesterday. How many teachers does it take to use Skype? It may take two teachers to control the classroom than just one: a teacher on the scene to make sure everything does not explode into anarchy and another to teach the lesson. Our teacher, meanwhile, was not even 50 feet away.

Skype is a wonderful tool and I use it everyday to talk to friends and collaborate on matters. But I cannot see the benefit from using Skype to teach from a distant position to a group of students who could use a actual authority in the classroom.

My Gripe with Skype

With each new evolutionary step of the internet, there is another new revolutionary tool that is developed that is changing the way we communicate. Enter Skype, the new tool that is capable of revolutionizing classrooms due to its free video conferencing abilities. By allowing people to communicate without actually being in the same room, Skype is able to increase efficiency and eliminate unnecessary travel costs. This could particularly be effective in a large lecture classroom setting because a teacher could teach multiple lectures at one time. Although lecture halls are limited by the number of students they can seat, Skype could allow a professor to broadcast his or her lecture across multiple rooms at the same time. By removing the physical walls that bind the teacher to the classroom, a teacher is no longer restricted to just one lecture at a time; he or she can teach all three of his or her sections at once, rather than having to teach one lecture every two hours.

Although Skype is effective in a large classroom setting, it has its drawbacks in smaller classroom settings. Whereas in large lecture halls, there is minimal student-teacher interaction, smaller classrooms thrive on the ability for students to be able to interact with the teacher. If a teacher is present in the classroom, then the student will be able to pick up on key auditory and visual cues provided by the teacher, however many of these cues may not be picked up on Skype. This is primarily due to Skype’s unreliability and dependence on a working internet connection. As we witnessed in class on Thursday, there were several times where the screen froze up, which led to wasted time trying to fix it. In addition, communication over Skype depends on a microphone, so the only way that each student would be able to interact with the teacher would be if each student had his or own microphone. Although this could be solved by distributing a microphone and a webcam to each student in the class, it is not very cost effective, and it would be much easier for the teacher to just be present in the classroom. Another limitation presented by Skype is the lack of eye contact. Eye contact is a crucial skill for face to face communication, and if the student cannot tell if the teacher is specifically looking at him or her, or vise versa, then it is difficult to tell if the other person is actually paying attention. The teacher could easily be looking at something else on his or her computer screen rather than paying attention to the class, and the students would not even know. Due to the limitations presented by Skype within a small classroom setting, students receive much less personal attention, thus hindering the overall learning experience rather than improving it.

Teaching With Skype

While Skype is a fun and free application for video chat, it can also be used effectively in the workplace or, as we discovered on Thursday, in the classroom. Skype allowed us to communicate easily (if it weren't for technical difficulties with sound) with the teacher, despite the fact that she was in another room. If Isabel was unable to make it to class for some reason, she would be able to conduct class with her laptop and an internet connection. While it obviously wouldn't be as efficient as if she were truly present, I still think it would be the best way to direct class without actually being there. The ability to pose and answer questions, as well as read the facial expressions and body language of the students, are unique to Skype compared with other modes (e.g. via telephone).
The biggest drawback of teaching a class with Skype would be the risk of technical difficulties. While the sound issue in our class was rather minor, if the screen froze or the video cut out, then much of the benefit of Skype is lost. If the sound were to cut out completely, then it would be difficult to teach the class at all. And if the internet connection was down, then it would be impossible. The negatives of Skype are more the risk of failure rather than lack of functionality.

The Merits of SKYPE in the Classroom

Our class yesterday showed us that Skype is less than ideal when considering modes of education--the sound quality was iffy and the video feed had a tendency to skip and lag. But in a larger context, Skype can aid in the education of so many people around the world, especially those from disadvantaged areas of the globe. Skype opens up doors to many people that may not have the opportunity to commute to school, and provides a relatively cheap alternative for disadvantaged students. Yes, a student in a poorer country would need a computer, high speed internet access, and the like to sit in on an online class--but if classes were conducted via the internet, wouldn't foreign governments be more likely to spend on such necessary infrastructure as establishing said internet access? If classes were conducted online via Skype, a student from a third world country could potentially tune in at a very cost-effective rate.

As for those of us attending elite US universities like Michigan, Skype really doesn't hold much value. The ability to communicate with teachers is poor due to a lack of sound quality, and the lack of personal proximity and eye contact makes for a very detached lecture; one that won't resonate well with students who expect much more. Additionally, the cost of a University education is so high right now that I don't think students would accept being taught by Skype. It is way too impersonal and, at least to me, signals a lack of effort on the part of the teacher to make him or herself present to the class. Skype essentially takes away all accountability away from teachers and places the onus entirely on students to learn the material themselves, which I think is unfair, especially at such a high cost.

The Good and the Bad of Skype in the Classroom

Skype does not have many advantages over the presence of a physical teacher; if our class was to take a vote on whether or not to conduct the rest of our classes in the same way as this past Thursday, I am almost positive it would be unanimously voted against. However, the advantages that Skype does have come under certain conditions. For example, if the teacher cannot make it to the class because he/she is sick or injured, Skype is a reasonable alternative to cancelling class altogether. The class will most likely be less productive than if the teacher was there, but Skype is a good tool to use to come as close to actually being there as possible. With the ability for the teacher to see and converse with the students in the class, and vice versa, class can be run nearly normally. Another advantage of Skype is the potential for its use in online courses, or any other situation where students are from many different parts of the country or the world. With Skype, students can see and interact with an online teacher in real time, simulating a real classroom without any of the participants of the class having to leave the comfort of their own home. Even though it does not mimic a real classroom situation perfectly, Skype is the best tool for doing so at the present time.

While Skype is a great tool for simulating a traditional class, there are many reasons why it does not quite compete with the physical presence of a teacher. First of all, if a teacher is in the classroom he/she will have a much easier time controlling the class. By this I mean that it seems easier to take the teacher seriously if he/she is actually there than if he/she is just a talking face on the wall. Also, discussion in the classroom when the teacher is using Skype can be greatly limited, as we saw in our class on Thursday. This is due mainly to the fact that the teacher cannot hear what all members of the class are saying simply because they are too far away from the microphone, forcing students to get out of their seats and walk to the microphone. This is ineffective for two reasons, one because students are less willing to physically get up and talk into a microphone in front of the whole class than they would be to simply raise their hand and talk in a traditional class setting, and two because it takes a long time for one student to add one comment to the discussion when conducting class this way. A solution to this problem would be to distribute microphones throughout the classroom so that everyone's voice would be picked up, but this would be expensive and tedious. Another problem associated with using Skype to conduct class is its unreliability. The screen freezes quite frequently when using Skype if the Internet connection becomes too weak. This disrupts class and becomes a technical issue that should not have to be dealt with in the middle of class. Even though Skype is the best tool out there right now for conducting class without the physical presence of a teacher, it needs to be greatly improved before it can be considered equal.

What's all the hype about Skype?

The video conferencing tool known as Skype has become popular almost exponentially. Connecting people across the globe through not just text, but rather picture and video. When people can't physically be together, Skype is the closest possible way of being in the same location. The video capabilities allow users to read body language and facial signs that phone or instant messaging lacks. As far as classroom use, Skype would be beneficial for uses such as guest speakers or when the professor can not attend class for some reason. Also, it could allow for broadcasting of classes to many different locations which could reach a greater amount of people than say, one lecture room could hold.

As many positives that Skype can boast, there are also flaws with the program. Its benefits can only reach as far as Internet access is able. A strong connection is required for clear, continuous conferencing. If the connection is weaker, the picture may freeze or have a time lag and the sound does not transfer. Should this occur, one user may not know it has happened and would not know they must repeat the information that was not transmitted because of the defect. This can cause misinterpretations or just a waste of time when they must repeat themselves. Because of the unreliability, it's hard to compare using Skype in the classroom and a professor physically being present. A professor being in the classroom can never freeze; therefore class can be conducted without the possibility of technical interruption. All in all, Skype can never substitute 100% with the physical presence of a professor.

To Skype or Not to Skype?

I have been using Skype for a number of years to keep in touch with friends in ways that social networking sites and instant messaging clients do not allow: real-time video conferencing. Yet, until now I never considered the potential benefits and consequences of using it as a mode of education. First, let's look at the positives. To start, Skype uses the Internet to broadcast its real-time video conversations. This would make it attractive to students in areas that do not have good education at their disposal. For example, students from less developed countries and rural communities would only need a computer, Internet connection, mic, and speakers to participate in classes over Skype, along with a reduced or even free tuition. In addition, Skype allows for the easy transfer of files, so it would be simple for students to hand in projects to teachers or for teachers to pass out documents to students.

On the other hand, Skype does have its drawbacks. In a video conference on Skype, your experience will only be as good as your Internet connection. If your connection is slow or unreliable, your video conference will be fuzzy and inaudible or it may not work at all. In addition, it may be difficult for teachers to directly interact with students as they would in a classroom setting. For instance, a teacher would not be able to watch a student work on a math problem in real time. Sure, the teacher could review his work after he sends the file to him, but that is much less efficient than a teacher watching you work on it. Also, if students are using Skype, it is impossible for the teacher to monitor their attention. Whether they are watching the professor or playing a computer game, the students eyes will still be fixed to the screen.

There are numerous disadvantages to using Skype, but for those that do not have a traditional classroom experience available, it is far better than not receiving an education at all.

Changing the Encyclopedia

If I was asked by a teeacher to edit a page on wikipedia I would be very surprised. Although I know that anyone has the ability to edit a wikipedia page, I have never done so and would never even think about doing so. I use wikipedia often as a source for information about anything I need to know. I see wikipedia as a reliable sourse despite the fact that anyone is able to edit or post information. I trust the site to be screened before it is oficially available, and this screening seems to be very effective. I would be surprised that I was asked to edit a page because I do not think that I know something that is not already on wikipedia and I would not know what to edit. Editing wikipedia seem like it would have pretty major consequences for many people because so many people depend on it for accurate information, and it would be shocking to hear someone request that I change information that is on the site.

However, if I were going to edit a page on wikipedia I would edit one that I knew something about. I would be stuck though, and would not be able to decide if I wanted to add information that I know is correct or if I would rather change something and make it wrong just out of curiosity for how effective the screening process is. The first option would allow me to edit and provide information that I have learned and provide it to others. I would maybe edit something about Spain or bullfighting as I have firsthand knowledge about both and could give accurate information. The second option would be very interesting because I could test the system. I would change some information to something that I know is wrong just to see if it gets though the screening. IF it did, I would not rely on wikipedia for correct information in the future.

My Contribution

My initial reaction to my teacher asking me to edit a page on Wikipedia would be surprise, and I would probably laugh a little bit. But then I would look at it differently. My teacher is asking me to contribute to the greatest, and most well know, online community encyclopedia. I guess it's not really an honor because anybody can do it. But, it would feel good knowing that I had contributed to Wikipedia. After processing this request, I would think about how I would contribute.

I would not waste my time trying to change a Wikipedia entry that already exists into something that is obviously wrong or obscene. Wikipedia is too good at filtering their content, and it would be removed pretty quickly. I would pick something that I know about and attempt to contribute to that subject. For example, I might try to contribute to Ultimate, as I know a lot about that sport.

To edit truthfully or creatively?

My teacher recently told me to edit a page of Wikipedia. My initial thoughts definitely centered around my capability to do so. How could I just edit any certain page on a site that is used by hundreds of thousands of people every month? Well I searched the site, and there it was, an editing option on every page, with hundreds of different edits every day. I use this site for information every day and trust that everything I look at is correct. Well, maybe thats not the case If any ordinary person can edit any page without a clue of what their talking about. I began to doubt just how valid Wikipedia was and decided that I needed to definitely double check my information from now on with more trustworthy sources.

If I had to edit one specific page, while others might choose something their familiar with, like a page on their high school, I would edit something I had absolutely no idea about. I would want to test just how thoroughly Wikipedia looks at what is edited and the validity of the information that is posted. I would probably edit the personal life section on a page about a celebrity I hated or the culture of a random foreign country. Replacing what may seem to be the truth with ridiculous statements. I might say that Tom Cruise has a habit of wearing women's underwear or that its common for the people of Kazakhstan to eat male reproductive organs. If Wikipedia is giving me the opportunity to edit anything why not make the most of it.

To edit truthfully or creatively?

My teacher recently told me to edit a page of Wikipedia. My initial thoughts definitely centered around my capability to do so. How could I just edit any certain page on a site that is used by hundreds of millions of people every month? Well I searched the site, and there it was, an editing option on every page, with hundreds of different edits every day. I use this site for information every day and trust that everything I look at is correct. Well, maybe thats not the case If any ordinary person can edit any page without a clue of what their talking about. I began to doubt just how valid Wikipedia was and decided that I needed to definitely double check my information from now on with more trustworthy sources.

If I had to edit one specific page, while others might choose something their familiar with, like a page on their high school, I would edit something I had absolutely no idea about. I would want to test just how thoroughly Wikipedia looks at what is edited and the validity of the information that is posted. I would probably edit the personal life section on a page about a celebrity I hated or the culture of a random foreign country. Replacing what may seem to be the truth with ridiculous statements. I might say that Tom Cruise has a habit of wearing women's underwear or that its common for the people of Kazakhstan to eat male reproductive organs. If Wikipedia is giving me the opportunity to edit anything why not make the most of it.

The World of Wikipedia

Looking at the nature of this course, I was not that surprised when our teacher told us to edit a Wikipedia page. Seeing as we have already dabbled in the businesses of Twitter, Blogs, Google, and YouTube, I figured it would only be fitting to learn about the processes of Wikipedia. Although it was only a joke, there were many thoughts that were going through my mind when we first received the go-ahead to make an edit. Since Wikipedia is used by millions of people all over the world that are searching for a wide variety of topics, I realized that I must be very cautious and thoughtful in anything that I chose to add. I knew that any false information could easily be reverted by the watchful administrators, or by other monitoring users. My first thought would be to edit a page that very few people view, such as a page about the Banana Pancake Trail (it’s a real thing) or a page about Ohio State University. However, I realized that with the amount of people that use Wikipedia, someone is bound to be looking for something about the Banana Pancake Trail or about OSU, otherwise there wouldn’t be an article about it. Therefore, anything I edited would inevitably be seen by someone, even if it wasn’t up to par with the rest of the article. I wouldn’t want to decrease the credibility or integrity of Wikipedia by inserting my own nonsense into a topic that I barely have any knowledge of because that would just take away from the very foundation that Wikipedia prides itself on – user generated content that is reliable and informative.

If I did have to edit a page on Wikipedia, I would choose to edit something that I am knowledgeable about, and not about something like string theory or quantum mechanics. Therefore, I would probably edit my high school’s wikipedia page. Coming from a high school with 3,000+ kids, I would have expected a much better page that highlighted the successes of our academics, sports programs, and music programs. However, the page only provides scanty descriptions for each respective section. However, as a member of the marching band for three years, I would definitely choose to add more to the section about our marching band. I do not feel the current page sufficiently highlights all of the aspects of the band, nor does it emphasize the amazing success that the band has had for several decades. I feel that if another student viewed the current page, they would not get a true depiction of the band, but if I edited it, I could provide a unique insider’s viewpoint of all the inner workings of the band, which is something that other people could not.

Editing Power

When I first heard that we were supposed to edit the education page on Wikipedia, my first reaction was not so much shock as it was confusion. I did not know how I would edit the page, whether I wanted to truly expand upon the information on the page or insert several jokes into the existing text. Considering that I probably could not add much to the existing information on the page, I would probably settle on trying to make the page a little funnier by adding ridiculous facts. The confusion was also caused by the background of the situation, as I was surprised to hear my English instructor tell the entire class to change an internet page about education.

If I could change any page on Wikipedia, it would probably be that of the University of Michigan. I would edit the information to glorify the university in as many aspects as possible by making numerous claims about their academics, sports teams, and alumni. I could also mention myself at some point on the page as a form of self-promotion. Despite all of the changes, I would not lie at any point on the page as there is no need to add false information to a website meant to educate people from around the world. This shows the danger of allowing virtually anyone to edit each page as it makes the information less reliable.

Editing Wikipedia

If I were asked to edit an article on Wikipedia, my first reaction would be which one do I edit, and what could I possibly add? Wikipedia is full of a ton of articles pertaining to any subject imaginable. Since most of the articles contain a lot of information already, it is difficult to decide what should be edited. If an instructor told me to edit one single article, I would first have to find one that needs editing. Then I would have to carefully read the article in order to determine what I would like to add, remove, or adjust. This process would be tedious and time consuming. Therefore, I do not really care to edit any article on Wikipedia.

I do not particularly desire to edit a specific Wikipedia page, but if I had to choose, I would want to change something in an article that I am familiar with. I would probably want to choose a band or maybe even a movie that I know a lot about. If I couldn't find anything to change, I would do some research on the topic until I could find something to add. If I had to choose, I would want to add to a favorite band of mine so that more information was available on Wikipedia. However, I do not wish to edit any articles because it seems as though it would take a lot of time and effort. For now, I am happy just being a viewer on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia

When told to edit a page, in all honesty the first word on my mind was "Vandalize!". There are plenty of people/organizations/things that I would love to spread some infamy to. Ofcourse as any good wikipedian knows, doing so is hardly effective. Thus naturally I would seek to add new information or clean up unneccessary or otherwise biased information in such people/organizations/things instead.

One such page is the page for NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement. First I must note that I loathe this page, due to the complexity of how the page is written and how difficult it is to understand what the page is saying at various parts of the page. The NAFTA is an incredibly controversial international treaty that can utterly threaten Democracy and Government of all countries involved, United States, Canada, and Mexico. Yet it dodges all chances to say this by using legal and jargon and statistics over real implications and effects of its parts. I would change this page by clarifying these pages so that the laymen can properly understand its history, implications, effects, and usage.

Editing a Wikipedia Page

If an instructor told me to edit a page of Wikipedia, many things would be going through my head. First, I would wonder what topics I know a significant information about and could contribute to what was already written. As a college student, I feel that I lack the accumulated knowledge necessary to editing an encyclopedia that reaches millions of users around the world. Although anyone can technically change pages on Wikipedia, there is a certain personal responsibility users need to have. Most people that use Wikipedia use to to find information and not to shape that information for others to see. Those that do make edits, at least I hope, have expert knowledge on that subject area and provide an objective point of view.

That being said, if I had to edit a page of Wikipedia, I would probably pick something where I could find multiple sources to backup whatever changes I was making to the content. Out of my own self-interest, I might do something sports related, maybe a biography of an athlete. With multitudes of statistical information available online for sports, it would be relatively easy to locate an accurate piece of information that was not mentioned on an athlete's bio page. Regardless of whether I was sure of the information I was inputting, because I am not an expert on the subject, I would feel an inherent uneasiness about putting something online that anyone in the world could read and accept as a fact.

To edit or not To Edit

Is it credible? Should I do this? What will I write? These are a few thoughts drifting through my head. What harm could it cause if I edited just one page. I could add a word that most people would look meow over in another setting. Did you catch that? Maybe. Maybe Not. I could do something small. I could do something large. Boom everything is gone. Will my one edit alter someone else's life. If I edit say the Nobel Prize page for 1969 and put it as Barbara Kingsolver for the invention of cheese what will happen to the 12 year old student doing an internet scavenger hunt looking for the 1969 Nobel Prize winner? The real question here is how will our actions affect the people around us. Like the article we read on Wikipedia describes, there are no rules to prevent us from doing these things, but there are standards. When I was told to edit Wikipedia I was filled with humor, joy, and confusion. My teacher was asking me to edit a page, legitimately or not.
If I had to edit one page I would definitely edit the page for Laurel, MS. I do not know much about certain statistics, but I feel as if I would be qualified to add a section on social life and activities. Although my town is not a "big" city there is still a lot to do if you know where to go. It may not be "necessary" it terms of a wikipedia page for information, but if someone was visiting my town they would know where to go and what to do.

Which Wikipedia Article Would You Edit?

If I were told to edit a wiki article on Wikipedia.com, I would initially think to myself "Which article?" because the shear number of articles on Wikipedia are endless. There are thousands of wiki articles on Wikipedia.com and its created to allow anyone to edit an entry. Thats the point; anyone can edit or create, and it wants everyone to edit or create articles. However, since its such a widely used website, care must be taken when editing to maintain integrity. Also since its so widely used and millions of people around the world use it, being able to say "I wrote that paragraph!" on a Wikipedia article can provide the writer some sort of pride. However, I personally would take caution and pick an article on which I was a quasi-expert because I would not want to debase Wikipedia's credibility. On the other hand, if I were told by my teacher to edit a certain article which I had no expertise in, I'd think she was crazy and question her means because she'd cause me to deface the very fabric of what Wikipedia aims to do, its system of checks-and-balance. As an avid user and proponent of the site, I would not want to have its articles lose credibility.

However, if I were told to pick an article of my choice to edit, I'd pick an article which I was an expert in to ensure the maintain the articles integrity. Since I earned my Batchelor's and Master's in Aerospace Engineering, I'd be drawn to edit a page relating to that field, such as picking Wikipedia's page on compressible flow, which I have taken many classes on and would consider myself an expert in. My credibility about the subject alone will allow me to maintain the integrity of the Wikipedia article because I would not be adding any information which is untrue and which would mislead readers.

Convenient, but Credible?

I actually was not terribly surprised when we were asked to edit Wikipedia. After reading the article "The Lessons of Wikipedia" and viewing a history of edits for the "education" page on Wikipedia, I figured the point of our assignment might have been to show how quickly our edits would be reverted. With all of the administrators and self-proclaimed editors patrolling articles as frequently as they are, its unlikely that our changes would have survived more than a few hours. Even so, I'm skeptical about the credibility of Wikipedia because of the ease with which we could have made untrue edits. Changes that are not blatantly vandalism would be difficult to recognize, and not all the editors can have sufficient knowledge to locate falsities. As a result, I was not shocked by our assignment, but was still somewhat bothered by it.
If I could edit any article on Wikipedia, I would probably edit the article on Scientology. I think I could have a lot of fun with this because I could change just about anything in the article and nobody would know the difference. I can't imagine even the most devout Scientologists could possibly keep track of all of those eccentricites.

Editing a Wikipedia Page

When we were first told to edit Wikipedia, I was surprised because I had never done such a thing before. While I realize that many people who write on Wikipedia are not qualified to write on certain topics, there is a feeling in me that says that I have no business editing pages when really I don't know what I am talking about. In user-controlled environments, there is often added pressure to maintain personal standards for accuracy, because people around the world may be reading what I write. Thus, my first thought was, "If we are editing Wikipedia, I am going to have to do a lot of research." There is an immense amount of personal responsibility that comes with editing Wikipedia--and unless I really know all the facts behind a page, I would not feel comfortable editing.

I guess that I would edit a page in a field in which I am most comfortable. I am a big fan of Classic Rock, political campaigns, and the New York Yankees, so I think I could edit a page pertaining to any of these topics. I have never really had a desire to post on Wikipedia, though, because frankly I do not know any more about any of these topics than someone else who has posted the information already. Finally, I feel that since I use Wikipedia to get most of my information I am not able to recognize that some information is missing--it seems to have become a vicious cycle of sorts.

Editing Wikipedia?

"But whats to edit?" That was the first thought that crossed my mind as we where jokingly tasked to edit Wikipedia. was the goal to just piss off some random editor who would now have to go back and fix it? did we need to make some inside joke like some friends of mine? Just do a bit of cyber tagging like some random villain would? How does someone simply destroy the collective wisdom of many collaborators on a simple whim? well thank you professor for not having us find out about that. I would like to have seen the story of "Michigan class wants to destroy education!" on various blogs and news sites. Ah well..

If I had to choose a section I would edit I would join the countless other geeks and nerds in the editing of various geek topics. I know my history of video games and could likely fix several errors if needed...but I wont because I am correct that there are plenty of others working on that right now. Editing Wikipedia would be boring because I would just be another nerd on the edit warpath. Most of the entire site is run by oddballs like us. Why else is there only 2,528 words devoted to the founding fathers of our country...but 6,794 words devoted just to the list of characters from the entire Star Wars franchise. I realize that word count does not mean everything but its interesting what gets more of the attention. In the end if I was going to REALLY edit some wiki I would instead join TvTropes.org. At least there we geeks and nerds can point and laugh about all of it. A site that gives Wikipedia the trope of "dude wheres my changes?" is simply a win.

Wikipedia

My initial thoughts when I was told to edit Wikipedia included many ideas that would not necessarily be productive. When people think of Wikipedia, most of them recall the fact that anyone can edit the information at anytime. I am no different and having that kind of power is dangerous. I thought about posting random pieces of information that could either be funny or just pointless that would throw off the reader. While I would never actually follow through and do this, it was tempting.

I have never had the desire to post anything on Wikipedia, but if I had to edit one page of Wikipedia I would edit some uncommon page that nobody ever looks at. I would post random comments about the subject that may or may not be true. Then I would watch that post and see how long it took somebody to realize that the information I posted was not accurate. Like I said, I have no real motivation to contribute to Wikipedia so if this seems random and pointless...well that's because it is.

Editing Wikipedia

My initial reaction to being asked to edit a page on Wikipedia is the feeling that it would be a waste of time. It's true that anyone can edit any page on Wikipedia that their heart desires, but unless they are actually knowledgeable on the subject of which they are writing, this edit will not last very long. I have no interest in vandalizing the pages that exist already on Wikipedia, so this is not what I would do if I were to edit a page. I realize that this would ultimately be a complete waste of time because of the faithful Wikipedians that "watch over" the site's content and make sure it does not include false information. Instead I would try to research the subject that I wished to edit and make a meaningful contribution to the site.

I have no interest in editing anything on Wikipedia for all the reasons listed above, because as of right now, I do not believe I am competent enough to do so. For this reason, I believe if I was told I had to edit a page on Wikipedia, I would not do it just yet. I would wait until I had gone much farther into my education and had learned complicated concepts of the field I am in, like biology for example. At that point I would look at some of the pages that pertain to complex information in biology that I had mastered and make sure they were all accurate. In this way my contributions would actually remain relevant and would not immediately be deleted as they would if I were to edit a Wikipedia page now.

My Power on Wikipedia

First impressions mean a lot. Those on first dates. Those at job interviews. But those that come when you are told to edit Wikipedia are a bit different. I was immediately thinking "We really are going to start accounts on another site?" After Twitter, Blogger, and Google Sites it seemed crazy to start yet another account. However, I was also a bit intrigued. I've enjoyed using the Twitter and Google Sites as I can see myself using both in the future. Blogger probably not so much because I'm not the type of person to blog by choice. However, editing Wikipedia is a bit of a daunting task. People actually rely on Wikipedia to display accurate information. I would be nervous to change anything previously written because I would not want to be blamed if what I wrote was actually incorrect.

If I was going to edit Wikipedia it would probably be for something like Facebook or American Eagle. Both I have direct experience with and a good amount of knowledge about. After working at American Eagle for over 2 years I have some insider knowledge that I could share. Also, Facebook is a site I visit everyday and have explored some of the obscure corners of the site that most people don't visit. So I could contribute my discoveries and insights. Facebook always seems to be changing and advancing so there would always be something new to edit about.

Editing Wikipedia

Finally, only five minutes left of class. We must be wrapping things up pretty soon, right? Wrong. Before I expect the teacher to give us the homework, she asks us to edit a Wikipedia page. I am in complete shock. I've been feeling so sick all day, and all I wanted to do was climb into bed, and now this?! Editing Wikipedia is a huge job that must take much more than five minutes. I was feeling completely overwhelmed by the amount of work we had to do in that class today. I began thinking of the quickest, simplest way to edit a page, only to realize that I had completely no idea what i was doing. Then came the most wonderful words that I could possibly hear at that moment. The teacher said, "just kidding."

If I actually had to edit a Wikipedia page, I would want to choose a topic that I was very well versed in so that I could give the most accurate information possible. I think I would pick something having to do with dance, because that is a huge part of my major and something I have been doing since I was very young. I feel that I could bring a lot to a page on this topic, and be able to edit what other's have written on it.

Googling Me

Everything can be found on google, right? Even yourself? During class, when we all googled ourselves, I realized that I can be googled. While most of the search results had nothing to do with me, there were a few that did. I was able to find a link to my facebook page, high school sports rosters, and two pictures that I drew in my high school art class. I did not expect any of these findings, except maybe the link to my facebook. I realized that I am much more googleable than I previously thought. It was fun to be able to google myself and find actual results that pertained to me. However, although it was entertaining to find myself on google, I do not wish that I was more googleable. I would not want others to be able to find information about me that I feel is personal or private. I do not think that it is necessary for people to be able to google me, because those people whom I wouldn't mind knowing my personal information I know well enough that they could ask me and not have to google me.

Having the ability to find yourself on google does have some advantages in that people who are trying to find links to your sites such as facebook or twitter would be able to do so. Also, it is fun to find information about yourself on a site such as google. However, I believe that this is where the advantages end. It is very risky to have personal information available to the world, especially today when internet stalking has become much more prevalent. There is also some information that is embarrassing or very private that many people would not want others to be able to access. There are great risks in strangers knowing too much information about you and using it to be able to access other information, to steal, or to stalk. Also, anyone can put information online, and therefore much of the information that is provided is probably not true. It could be detrimental if someone were famous enough that there was a lot of information about them on google, because there are many people who would post false information that could be harmful to reputations.

Sara E. McMall--not famous...

The site Google has become synonymous with knowing just about anything you want to know. Simply type in a word and up comes probably over thousands of results. However, for my name Sara McMall, there is a select few. Most of the results come up with recognitions I received in high school. It varies from being the class vice president to being a part of the state championship basketball team my junior year. In the future, I can see myself being more googable. I hope to make a bright future for myself that includes great success in the business world that will hopefully lead to my name becoming more well-known. I wouldn't mind being googable, as opposed to being afraid of being so.

Appearing on Google does have risks, advantages and limitations. Having your name more well known makes sites erupt with information about you. Even information that is meant to be private or personal. Also, when your name, picture or any other publication is put onto the internet, it is there permanently. Even if it is "deleted" from the site it is posted on it will forever be in the world of the internet and any information could be downloaded, saved or shared. Especially if that information, picture or publication is degrading to your name, it can make a person feel even more remorseful or ashamed for what could be posted. All in all, being googable has its pros and cons. However, it depends how one carries on their lives that will determine if that information on Google is positive or negative.

Benjamin Who?

Actually, I am really not that Google-able. When I type my name into Google, I am not on the first page. There are quite a lot of Benjamin Asher's, and I am not surprised to find that a lot of them are Jewish doctors. The only way that I can really get myself to appear on Google is to type the username that I use for everything on the internet, "benasher44." Starting a search using my username on Google pulls up my Facebook profile, Twitter account, some web hosting accounts that I have used for creating websites (assuming I've used their forums for help and advice), and my email address that was used as contact info on a web page on my high school's website.

I would not consider being Google-able as a danger, but I do believe that people should be careful about what information they leave on the Internet. People should take necessary steps to safeguard their information on the Internet. For example, if you have a Facebook account, you should make sure that your account settings are set so that it is only viewable by your Facebook friends. This way if your account comes up on Google, a random Internet surfer cannot look at your Facebook profile. Otherwise, I do not think that the average person should worry too much about being Google-able. When I say the average person, I mean that people should not worry about being Google-able, if they are not a celebrity or any other person of interest. Those people are generally not targeted for their personal information, with some exceptions such as fraud. And for that reason, nobody should ever post any financial information online.

How Googleable Are You?

Upon entering my name into the google search, I found more articles on myself than I expected. Most of the subjects revolved around my involvement in the performing arts. The first thing that came up was my Facebook page, complete with pictures of myself in the images portion of Google. From my Google search someone could find out my name, what I look like, who my friends are, where I live, and what shows I have been involved in. At first I thought all of the articles were exciting and I was proud to have them all on display. However after thinking about it for a while I realized how scary it is that all of this information is available to just anyone that stumbles upon it. I am a musical theatre major, so inevitably part of my job in life will be promoting myself as an actor. Because of this it is important to network and have my work and reviews readily on display. But I would like to be slightly less googleable. I don't mind having my work online, but having my personal information on display is another story.

There are many advantages as well as risks involved in being searchable on Google. It is very practical as well as necessary as a business person to be able to promote yourself on Google. Businesses can't grow unless they are exposed to the world. This idea will become more and more important as we graduate college and have real jobs. Some risks are also very important. People with bad intentions can easily find where you live and a million other ways to quickly reach you. Google will tell you in less than a second who is in your family and what your job is. All of this information in the wrong hands could be extremely detrimental.

Opportunity or Risk?

When putting my name into google I am actually more googable than I would have first thought. There are 6 billion people in the world, how many results can come up by putting in one specific name? Well, although I am not famous my name is definitely not very common. So when searching for Reed Marcus many of the articles and images that come up are in fact about myself. News articles from high school sports as well as images from facebook were the most common hits. Honestly, if you asked me about five years ago, how googable I would like to be, I would have told you it would be awesome to have your name come up on the Internet. In this day in age however, where the Internet basically runs society its simply not that "cool" anymore. Specific searches can bring up just about anything about anyone that I have realized that it could be somewhat dangerous and a big security issue.

These dangers that can come with google are definitely a problem. How safe is it for any person in the world to be able to find specific information about you? What if you listed your address or phone number somewhere on the Internet that was only intended to be seen by certain people? It is not safe for people you do not know to also be able to access this information as well. Sure, google might provide ways to promote yourself and it could be very useful to get yourself out there for a certain job or opportunity, but the dangers may outweigh this opportunity. We are learning more and more that any piece of information put on the Internet can be found with a simple search and it is important to realize this before posting any material.

Publicly Private

I'm Indian, and being Indian comes with its perks. For example, we are already naturally tanned. We also quite possible invented the most delicious food there is on the planet. However, with perks comes disadvantages- about 1 billion of them. What I'm talking about is the shear number of Indian there are in the world. What this means for me is that, there is probably about really good chance that when I search my name on Google.com, the first, second, 10th, or 30th result will not be me. Typing my name (in quotes) into Google's search engine produces 64,500 results, and of those results, it takes me about 4 pages to reach my Twitter account. However, I know that the Michigan Daily has an article about me out there, and after about 5 minutes of clicking 'Next', Google still did not show my 5 minutes of fame in the Daily. I'm just not that Googleable. The famous Indian Bollywood actor which the same name as me understandably steals my luster. I'm slightly disappointed because if someone where to Google my name, I'd appreciate some of the spotlight. I'd like the world to know that I was Mr. Engineer 2008 (my Daily article), it took a lot of work to prepare. Bollywood hunk Karan Patel did nothing to deserve the spotlight, except being born a stud.

Now that I think about it, do I really want to be 'THAT' famous? I mean, if I were, there would be thousands of pictures of me littering the internet. They would range from my photo shoots to me taking a dip into the ocean; mabye even some paparazzi shots of me nude in my room- I wouldn't want that! My privacy would turn into publicy. However, lets say when my name was Googled, and not many Karan Patel's existed in the world, the first few pages were filled with links related to me. My Facebook profile would be accessible, and potential employers would access my profile and view incriminating photos of my at a house party or at the bar. If someone were trying to find something to bring my reputation down, they'd probably be successful. Thinking about the advantages is hard because even if there were something to brag about online, such as a new article about you on CNN.com, you'd have to assume someone would care enough to Google your name- not many people I know have that time or care enough. As one can see, appearing in the search results of Google is a disadvantage because it invades into a persons privacy, allowing people to possibly ruin a their reputation.

googleable

Ofcourse if I simply search Harrison Kim, I get Kim Harrison, a rather well known author. And of course this goes on for several pages. However when I searched my name along with the word "environment" I got a few hits regarding a few of my accounts and referral information for some of the organizations I work with. Nothing terribly surprising

To be completely honest, I would like to be very googleable, not because I wan tthat much information out there, but very often people who are googleable have accomplished something in their lives noteworthy. However I wish to be noteworthy if only for the sole reason that I have accomplished something that regards to my dreams, anything else would be a waste of a link.

Good bye privacy. Hello publicity.

Although I didn’t expect much, I was surprised when almost nothing came up after searching “Jimmy Shen” in Google. I found results of other people with my name on Facebook, Myspace, and LinkedIn, but nothing that was relevant to me. However, I did find it surprising that my class twitter account showed up, despite the fact that it is privately protected, and I have not even used it actively. Even a Google image search returned nothing, save for a few pictures of random Asians. As a result, I found that I am not that “Googleable” at all, but that is just the way I would prefer it that way. We must be careful about what kind of information gets on the internet because we are now living in a world where it is easy to search for just about anything at the click of a button. Anything from criminal history, to past achievements, to past experiences, can be searched for without your discretion, and that in itself is a scary thought.

With Google being the global internet powerhouse that it is, it has become the go-to site for anyone with questions about religion, philosophy, math, sports, cooking, and much more. As a result, appearing on Google’s search engine can yield many advantageous benefits, due to the fact that so many people use Google daily. However, since so many people use Google, it could also prove to be a bane, rather than a boon to one’s company or individual self. Someone who would want to appear on Google’s search engine would be someone with several accomplishments, or something noteworthy about him or her. This can allow future employers to look up the individual and see what he or she has accomplished in the past. In addition, if one has published a scientific paper, Google will allow that paper to become available to millions of people, thus improving one’s reputation. However, Google’s popularity can also backfire on an individual, especially if he or she has made some poor decisions in the past. Celebrities and athletes have to contend with this issue all the time because pictures of them are constantly being uploaded to the internet. This has spawned controversy on many levels, and has damaged the reputation of many stars, such as Michael Phelps and his bong incident, or Vanessa Hudgens and her nude photo incident. With Google, these photos became available to anyone, anywhere, at any time. However, in the end, Google gets the final call about what appears in their search engine and what does not.

Googable?

After Googling myself in class I realized that I am not really that Googable. Only a couple results were found that were actually about me, but I am ok with that. To be honest I like the fact that everyone cannot access information about me by using a common search engine. Sure, it is interesting to know that my sports statistics and social networking sites can be found on Google, but I would not want personal information about myself to be that easily accessible.

Being able to be found on Google has its advantages, such as information could be found on the site that would impress a possible employer, but ultimately I think the risks outweigh the benefits. Having so much information about yourself on Google could lead to people discovering certain aspects about yourself that you really didn't want to become mainstream news. For example, just as Google could be a benefit when you are trying to find a job, it could also be a disadvantage. That employer that is interested in you could wind up on your Facebook or Myspace and he/she could discover information that would discourage them from hiring you as an employee.

How Googleable Am I?

This question can be taken two different ways: How many results come up when I type in my name, or how easy is it to find a result that actually pertains to me personally when I type in my name. The latter is how I take the question, because I have a very common name. When I type in "Alex Smith" to the Google search bar, I receive millions of results, but finding one that is about me personally is nearly impossible. In this way I am not very Googleable, because I am hard to find on Google. I have no desire to be any more Googleable than I am now, because I like that people cannot obtain information about me without me knowing about it.

Whether or not you view appearing on Google's search results as an advantage is simply a matter of opinion. If you want people to be able to look you up easily, then being easily Googleable is an advantage. In my opinion, however, being Googleable like this involves more risks than advantages, because it takes away from privacy. Being easily Googleable could result in many people who you would not normally want to have certain information about you to be able to obtain that information at the push of a button. Google is an extremely useful online tool that has revolutionized the way we obtain information, but it could potentially result in the release of personal information that we do not want circulating on the Internet.

Google

Google has the ability to bring you thousands of results on anything within seconds. When I googled myself, many results came up. I was brought links to my twitter, classroom blog, and even my sister's twitter. Surprisingly my Facebook did not show up. However, many Facebooks belonging to other Jenna Hetheringtons appeared. I was glad to learn that there was little information about me that came up right away after typing in my name. Being googable is not something I desire. I do not like the idea of information about me being readily available for anyone to see online.

There are many advantages and risks to being easily googled. If you are easily found on the internet, old friends or distant family members can find you and reconnect. This is beneficial for those who need to contact someone and do not know where else to look. However, there are also risks to being googled. If future employers are looking to find more information about a possible employee, they may look on the internet. This could be damaging if there is unwanted information online. While google may have its drawbacks, it is still a useful search engine.

Googability

I was not surprised by how Googable I was. Most of the results that came up were for other who have the same name as me, but a few links actually had to do with me, such as my intramural sports teams' rosters and a few newspaper articles from high school baseball and an award. I don't mind have these few connections on Google, but I wouldn't want any more than that. I'd rather not be that Googable; the idea that someone could simply type in my name and find out more than what is available now is somewhat unnerving.
In my opinion, the risks of being Googable far outweight the benefits. Although it is somewhat satisfying to feel importance of being accessible Google, the danger of personal information is much more significant. The possibility of identity theft, stalking, or some other potential crime that this information could be used for in the wrong hands is troubling. I would rather not have that feeling of being "important" than risk this possibility.

My Google-ability

When I first tried typing my name into Google, the only results were for doctors, race car drivers, and other professionals. I then tried adding the name of my home town, my current town, and the University of Michigan to the search, yet I still could not find myself. Most of the pictures that remained were of older men trying to advertise their profession. Only after I typed in the name of my high school after my name did any results come up, which included a group I belong to on Facebook and the links to a couple videos on Youtube. I was disappointed by my unavailability on the site but did not find such a problem to be much of the problem. However, in the future when online personal advertising becomes helpful towards my career, I would prefer people to be able to find me fairly easily online.

One's availability on Google, or their Google-ability, can be both an advantage as well as detrimental to his image. If one wants to provide information on the internet to promote himself, Google can be a very useful tool as the internet turns into a form or self-advertising. However, one can also be seen in a much worse light if people who may post negative articles about him or if any form of bad news appears on the search engine. Google-ability can thus be a great advantage, but only when it can be controlled by the very person it is affecting.

Patrick Holloway..I want to feel lucky.

Today in class I am reminded that my name is a common one. Many people share both my first and last name and are not related to me in any form. The only exception is by searching for Holloway and Michigan. This search will find my fathers position and not Me. Only by knowing my internet persona will anyone even begin to be able to track me down. For now this is a safe and simple level of notoriety. It is also something that I will wish to break by the time I leave my years of college behind. As an artist, we live and die more prominently by our name than many other forms of careers. We survive because we make connections to others who share our field and require exposure in order to achieve that. We want to be found by Google when people search for our name. I in time intend to build a website for myself that can showcase my work and allow companies to contact me. I want to be able to be found. This is a business and I must reach the largest market I can.

While I personally have to draw attention to my online self because of my chosen field. Many instead may suffer by the attention of online searches. People may not have controlled The image that they present to others due to online images or blog entries. Companies do check into the online backgrounds of potential employees in order to choose the best members they can find. Logically then if your online image is that of a out of control youth then your chances have been drastically reduced. This problem however can be avoided easily if you just take some time and think through how you wish to be presented. Controlling also what is said about you is also an important part of this. This does not mean that you must stop absolutely everything, but instead it is best to be aware of what is being said about you. Simply being aware will help put you in the position where It will not matter if your blogs and postings are found in a unwanted search. You will have nothing to hide and your image will carry you though.

Google and the Marketability Dilemma

Upon Google-ing myself, I came upon only a couple hits: my Facebook page and my class-created twitter account. I also found a picture of myself on Google Images from middle school when I was photographed at a charity benefit. Until I enter the working world, I am happy with my search engine standing--there is some information about me but none too much. Once I enter the job market as I leave college I will probably want to be a little bit more Google-able so that I can better advertise myself. Right now I think I have just the right amount of visibility on the internet, and I try to keep all of my online information on password protected sites like Facebook.

There are many risks and rewards that are associated with increased Google-ability. On the positive side, Google can be a great way for an individual or a company to market itself. Because advertising is so based on visibility, the fact that Google provides online traffic to all parts of the web is a boon to business and an aid to any job search. Of course, this could be spun against someone or something as anything negative written about a person or a product could potentially make its way into the hands of prospective employers or valued consumers. Because Google does not parse through its information, it has no control over whether online reviews or articles that are not credible make their way to the forefront. Thus, for people who are able to keep a tight lid on themselves, Google can be a very useful tool. For those who may run into any trouble, Google could potentially never let them forget it.

I'm on Google!

I am pleased to say I am on Google. When someone types in "Adam Kornbluh" into Google, almost all of the results on the first page are webpages that refer to me directly. Some of these sites are my Facebook, Twitter, and Blogger accounts. Others are old news articles about baseball or my DECA accomplishments in high school. After the initial shock of being found, I had some time to reflect on the ease of which the few webpages out of the billions on the Internet could be pulled in a matter of milliseconds. Fortunately, all my articles are positive or neutral, so it didn't particularly bother me that anyone could search my name and find these sites. In addition, none of the sites are revealing my personal information or anything else that could be potentially harmful. Because of this, I don't really mind being "Google-able" and actually find it humorous.

However, the ease of which I found myself demonstrates how simple it is for the public to learn potentially negative things about someone if it has ever been published on the web. Although an entertaining gimmick, being searchable on Google has far more disadvantages than advantages. To be honest, the only real benefit to being searchable is if you are trying to become famous. Disadvantages include the fact that if you have anything damaging on the web, possible employers, education institutions, and anyone else can see it. In addition, deleted webpages are still reconcilable. Google's handy "Cache" feature archives websites to preserve them even after they are deleted. Overall, I'd say that one's searchability on Google is more of a liability than a source of pride, unless of course you want to be the next Real World star.

Finding Myself.....Literally

When I search for myself, it's very easy to find information. My name is not very common. Just searching Mark Lelli returns my facebook, myspace, and twitter; adding a middle name or quotes finds everything else. I'm not sure if this is good or bad. While I could be found by friends looking for my websites or information about me, I could also be stalked or harassed. Not only were my websites shown, my pictures were. If there was a compromise of information and something I didn't want was realeased....through the click of a button my life could be trashed.

Google has many advantages in terms of searching for specific people. Say you hear a friend's name, but you can't find anything about them. All you have to do is search online and, depending on the originality of their name, they are in front of your face. However, the disadvatages are much more profound. Anyone can see anything about you. In one of the articles we read about google there was an issue with cache and old websites still in googles mainframes. If you delete something online you expect it to be gone, but with this excess cache it could take months even years to completely remove all of the content you deleted. That is a little to long for comfort.

Are we doomed to be obese due to heredity and current conditions? And is this article still relevant?

While heredity may play as a factor in obesity, people are strong-willed human beings. People can make choice and do so everyday. People can choose not to eat unhealthy foods. And while there is plenty of advertising geared toward fast-food, there is also a lot of education out there regarding healthy foods. Additionally, today's food system has improved slightly, but not enough to make a difference.

Obesity- Still a Big Fat Problem

The article is still relevant today as obesity is continuing to grow as a problem as never seen before. It is being tied with diabetes as the American epidemic of the new age with myriad criticisms being thrown around about the food industry, a lack in exercise, and many other factors. However, we are not doomed to live a life of eating only fast food and candy and spending all of our leisure time inside, on a couch, watching television. Despite government regulation that supports a cheap yet unhealthy food system, there are still numerous chances to retain a healthy diet and exercise; one only needs an open road to walk or run off one of the many new naturally grown products that are popping up in supermarkets at an increasing rate. Personal choices and will power can lead one to live a healthier lifestyle free of the heavy consequences of obesity and heart disease.

Response to "What if It's All Been a Big Fat Lie?"

The author, Gary Taubes, makes the point that heredity is not the cause of obesity--diets are. He emphasizes that high-carbohydrate diets can cause rapid weight gain. Demonstrating that exercise habits haven't changed much over the years, Taubes concludes that he culprit must, then, be the way people eat.

Though he wrote this article in 2002, it is still more than viable today. The way that many people eat has become deplorable in a large part due to fast food. Fast food has long been known to be terrible for consumers. If this article can convince people to avoid fast food and to instead turn to more healthy choices, a couple of things could happen--people could eat healthier, and fast food restaurants would have to respond to the change in demand by serving more health-friendly foods.

As this article was written in 2002, it predated many of the revolutions that have occurred in the fast food business for this very reason. People have become more health conscious recently. Maybe all it took was a simple expose on how unhealthy high-carb food could make people obese.

Organ Transplants: Why we should allow them

Organ transplants should be legalized even if some people think its immortal because human life is precious. Many people, including the Pope, an important religious figure, believe that organs should not be transplanted because it defecates the human body and is against religion. First, many people are of difference religions and some religions allow the transplant of organ. Therefore it is not safe to assume that just because one religion doesn't allow it, the whole world should. If someone believes its morally wrong- fine; just don't get in the way of the rest of us. Also, human life is extremely precious. If the fact that just because some people believe organ transplants are wrong is enough to supersede the fact that a life could be saved, saving irreparable turmoil to them and their family, is preposterous. Human lives should be saved whenever they can, and to peoples best abilities.

Some Like it hot: what is his arguement and how does he support it?

His argument is that many now legitimate forms of entertainment and media were once definable as pirated material, much like our P2p programs are now; and like them, p2p will most likely be accepted as a legitimate media with the appropriate laws to govern it. He used examples of the film industry, cable television, and several others, which during their beginning were considered illegal for many years due to violations of intellectual and media rights. He describes in details how the film industry could not get off legitimately due to the intellectual property of phonographs. The industry had to move far away where the laws were weak and grew until it was accepted. Being a novel method of distribution, P2P currently does not have appropriate laws to govern it, and it is the job of the government to create them.

The Big Fat Truth

Question: Is obesity still relevant in today's society, and are we doomed to obesity through heredity?

Although Gary Taubes’s article was written seven years ago, his topic is still very relevant in today’s society. As the years have progressed, obesity is becoming a major issue among Americans, especially the younger generation. The younger generation is growing up in a world of laziness – a world where an active lifestyle has been dethroned by King Technology. Video games, TV’s, and computers, all contribute to the lack of physical activity in our current day society. His claims that “we no longer exercise or walk up stairs, nor do our children bike to school or play outside, because they would prefer to play video games and watch television” are still relevant today, and they are even magnified on a larger scale. However, I do not believe that we are doomed to obesity due to heredity because there are many things that can be done to fight this issue. For example, video games are now becoming more active, as Nintendo is utilizing it’s motion sensing technology with games such as Wii Fit and Wii Sports. Fast food restaurants are also attempting to go healthy by adding healthier options to their menus, such as salads. Nevertheless, obesity is still a major issue, and there are only so many precautions that can be taken to mitigate its effects.

What IS the argument in "Some Like it Hot?"

In his article, Lessig argues that piracy will always exist and the only solution is to modify the laws to make this piracy as fair to everyone as possible. He explains how television, movies, and radio were all formed out of piracy. The laws eventually caught up with these newly pirated industries and regulated it so that those who deserved the credit for the pirated objects received it, while the industry was still allowed to continue. He explains how these acts of piracy grew tremendously and became the huge industries that we have today. He points out that while piracy is illegal, and should be so, we should not completely look down upon all acts of piracy as some of the most important entertainment media were born from them. Instead we should allow these new ideas to grow and expand while limiting them slightly so everything is fair to all those involved. Lessig specifically points out a more recent inventions that allows for piracy as a possible new important industry, P2P sharing. P2P sharing allows the sharing of music and videos over the Internet. This software does include piracy though because anyone can download these files for free and the authors do not receive anything for it. This new software has cause a hugh uproar with the government trying to stop it while millions of people take advantage of its ease of access and cheap prices. Lessig says that maybe P2P should not be stopped and prohibited, but instead just regulated and soon we may have a new method for the producing, selling, and buying of media files. Piracy is a criminal act, however sometimes the best inventions come out of it. While we should condemn those who pirate material, we should also recognize the potential in some of these ideas.

"What if It's All Been a Big Fat Lie?"

Is this still a relevant topic and are we doomed to be obese? Was this observation true in 2002 and will it be true in 2010 or 2020? What is no doubt true is what John Farquhar, a professor of health research and policy at Stanford University, said at the end of the article when he "attributed the cause of the obesity epidemic to the ''force-feeding of a nation.'' "

Maybe we just eat too much!

Now is that relevant to America or to my generation of Americans? YES! Read any news article on obesity in America and the statistics leap out. The Wall Street Journal in October stated “Two thirds of Americans are overweight or obese and approximately 60 million Americans are obese." *

How can that not be a health crisis waiting to happen?

In his book titled Good Calories, Bad Calories (2007), Taube continued his argument and cited more studies that seemed to show that genes, hormones, and chemistry all play their part. Meanwhile, the medial establishment conducts more studies and publishes more research while America gets fatter. Perhaps my generation can discover how to overcome hormones, chemistry, and genetic factors and make obesity a thing of the past. Perhaps there's a magic drug awaiting discovery that will solve the problem and allow everyone to eat what they what when they want. Wouldn't that be great for the economy and health care?

Until there's that magic cure, perhaps the answer may be simply that when offered food, we eat way too often and way too much. That leads to people becoming part of health care crisis facing America. Perhaps the real underlying message is that what works for some people might not work for others, but we could all eat less.

"What If It's All Been a Big Fat Lie?" Are we doomed to be obese because of heredity, and is the argument of this article still valid today?

Judging by the evidence of this article, I don't believe heredity plays a huge role. The author mentioned that there is no way of testing for this gene and also that if the problem was something other than obesity, say anorexia, people would blame a gene for that too. The point is, while a gene to cause obesity probably exists, it is mostly used as an excuse for an explanation to our problem.

The argument of this paper may no longer be valid with today's food system, because of the changes that have occured since it was written in 2002. Nowadays, advertisements for fast food and other restaurants dominate television, and these types of foods could play a bigger part in the diets of the average American. The article asserts that carbs, not fats, are responsible for the obesity in this country, but with the excess amount of fatty food and advertisements for that food, it is nearly impossible to tell.

Article" "Some like it Hot" Question: "What is the author's argument and how does he use evidence to support it?"

Author and authority on copyright law, Lawrence Lessig, clearly defines piracy as "using the creative property of others without their permission." He goes on to address ways in which piracy has survived and evolved throughout our entertainment history. Hollywood was the first to find the loop hole to piracy and enough time had passed that their set up was concise and no longer eligible for legal action. Next came the piracy of music compositions through radio. In essence, Lessig describes how piracy rules have to continue to change to keep up with the technology being created. P2P sharing is the newest piracy concern and the issue remains unsolved on how to preserve its benefits to the public while eliminating (as much as possible) the wrong done to artists. Lessig makes the point that we have yet to find the balance in this issue and the balance will only be found in time. However, as time progresses, so will technology digging the hole of question deeper and deeper. We must keep up with our technology and make the rules strict to suit the technology, otherwise we will just allow wrong to a certain people (artists) while benefiting the rest (the public).

"Some Like It Hot": What is the author's argument and how does he use examples to support it?

Lessig writes about the definition and history of piracy illuding to music , TV and the radio. He states that definitions of piracy are ever changing and the boundaries keep growing with the addition of new technologies. His main argument is that as technology changes, piracy laws must be changed in order to accommodate the times. However, thus far the laws have not caught up. He uses specific examples of how piracy was used since the beginning of the entertainment industry's fusion with technology, and how many laws were put in place to battle it. But his arguments about present day piracy laws are lacking, causing his claim to appear weak. He contradicts himself with his examples and his final conclusion.

What is the argument that the author is trying to make and how does he use his evidence to support his stance? (Piracy Essay)

In his conclusion the author says that only time will fix the problem that is piracy. However, in his evidence the author gives many examples of how piracy has evolved as technology advances. Therefore, piracy has never actually been solved, rather it has only been slowed. If trends continue, which is likely in our modern world, then piracy will always be present, but in different forms. In my opinion the author's argument that states time will solve the piracy problem is false. I believe this because lots of time has been dedicated to this problem already and time has not fixed the issue.

If selling organs could save thousands(according to the author), is the view by some that the practice is immoral justification to keep it illegal?

Although many people die every year from kidney disease and waiting on a list to recieve a kidney, the author's arguments are not sufficient to persuade me to make the sale and purchase of kidneys legal. There is a line of people waiting for kidneys and that author says the people will do anything to stay alive. People who are affected by kidney disease includes people from every background: rich and poor. If kidneys became purchasable, the people waiting in line for kidneys that are not as fiscally blessed as others would suffer. Kidney transplant would be controlled by who has the most money. The author argues that it will reward people who would donate the kidneys anyway. If this becomes true then there would be no more donations and the poor would be swept aside to die and suffer. Every choice has a pro and con, but from the author's argument I feel as if the cons outweigh the pros.

What is Lawrence Lessig's argument and how does he use evidence to support his stance?

In Lawrence Lessig's "Some Like It Hot," Lessig argues not for or against piracy, but instead argues that generations welcome forms of piracy from generations earlier. He argues this point effectively by citing specific historical examples in the entertainment industry where laws regarding patents of physical and intellectual property have been transgressed. The first of these examples is the actual creation of Hollywood, where filmmakers fled to the lawless West where Edison's patent would not hamper their ability to make movies. In addition, he points out numerous examples in the music industry where fighting over intellectual property has occurred and legislation had been written by Congress to compromise to "maximize the benefits while minimizing the wrongful harm it causes artist."

Lessig then applies this to the current dilemma in the music industry: P2P sharing. Like past examples, Lessig postulates the best way to solve this will happen over time and sudden sweeping change is not the correct response. Instead, he proposes that a system be set in place that allows for this maximization of public benefits with minimal harm to the artists that create the music. Although Lessig does not have a specific way to do this, he writes, "that balance will be found only with time."

The Sale of Organs

The author argues that the sale of organs should be legal. If selling organs could save lives, does the argument justify that the sale is not morally wrong? It is said in the text that many people who are sufferring from renal disease would do almost anything for a new kidney. If the sale of organs was possible, it may be seen as unethical by those who do not agree with its benefits. However, saving lives of those who are dying is much more important than an internal debate of whether or not it is moral. Many people may feel uncomfortable with the idea that living people would be allowed to have one of their organs removed and be sold. However, it is more unethical to let innocent people die because they cannot get a transplant. While the essay addresses the idea that organs should be sold, it does not talk about whether or not others see it as morally wrong.