Today, many people use Wikipedia for getting information. Wikipedia is very useful for getting information. It has a lot of information. However, it does not always offer us the right information. In spite of that fact, many people still rely on the site. Also, many students rely on the site when they write papers. There are three big problems if students are allowed to use or cite Wikipedia. Wikipedia gives students wrong information, makes lazy students, and makes students use similar reports. Therefore, schools should ban the use of Wikipedia for papers and exams.
First, students use or cite the information for their papers or exams even if its information form Wikipedia is wrong. According to Martin’s article, it is possible to post wrong and vicious information because anyone can write and edit at any time free (2008).” If someone writes or edits the wrong information on the site, students who want to get the information for their paper or exams may learn the information from Wikipedia. Then, students will use the wrong information on the report or exams. It may be a big problem. They will get a low score because of the wrong information from Wikipedia.
Second, Wikipedia makes students too lazy to search for the information. According to Lengel, “The Internet will never like the school library. No should it be. Its value as a communication medium lies in its openness and diversity. But these same aspects make it problematic for our students. They, like many of us, were brought up trust what we read in a library book, or in the newspaper, or on television. These communication channels were for the most part well-medicated, and so over the users developed a respectable authority” (2002, para. 12). Students should learn many things from their searching. Wikipedia is easy to search for information from. Students do not try to search anymore. They will be satisfied with the papers with only information from Wikipedia.
Finally, Wikipedia make students write similar reports. There is limited information on even Wikipedia to offer students for their papers. If every student gets the information from Wikipedia, every student will write similar papers. Students will not write unique papers. Wikipedia may easy to get a lot of information but it is not good for students when they search for information. Students cannot get a variety of information.
In conclusion, Wikipedia is not good for students. Students may get wrong information, become lazy, or write similar reports. Wikipedia is not appropriate for students when they search for information. Schools should demand that students to get the information from various sources such as books, newspaper, or articles.
Research
Lengel, J. (2006, February 7). Authority. Teaching with Technology. Retrieved April 23, 2008, from http://www.powertolearn.com/articles/teaching_with_technology/article.shtml?ID=12
Martin, N. (2008, January 21). Wikipedia clamps down on ‘unreliable’ editors. Telegraph.co.uk. Retrieved April 23, 2008, from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/20/wiki120.xml
She is Lazuly.
Monday, April 28, 2008
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Direct TV Service
Do you know what Direct TV is? How do you think that Direct TV is spread around the world? Direct TV is “a direct broadcast satellite service that delivers digital broadcasting” (The History of Direct TV, 2007, para.1). Direct TV is owned by Direct TV Group, which is controlled by Liberty Media. Direct TV broadcasts television shows, sports, movies, and music to households in the United States and Latin America. Direct TV offers the incredibly useful digital video recorder. Direct TV tried to increase more and more channels. Today, Direct TV offers us over 800 channels with high quality. While Direct TV has many advantages, it has some big problems which are not known by many people.
For Direct TV to take advantage of its benefit, it must address these problems; a complicated connection, high cost, and easy hacking.
First, Direct TV is very complicated to connect. There are many complicated operations because of high quality. It may be difficult to connect by yourself even though there is a manual for connecting. You may need a specialist for connecting. Also, the better the quality of the machines people have, the more complicated their systems are. When a previous television is broken, you might be able to fix it just through telephone customer service. It is not easy to fix Direct TV when it has problems, because of its being complicated.
Next, Direct TV is expensive for connecting and managing. In some cases, you may have to buy a specific TV and an antenna for Direct TV if you want to connect Direct TV. If you get all of the products for Direct TV, it will be expensive. In other cases, you may have to install Direct TV programs with money. You have to pay money every time when you install TV programs. Also, Direct TV is easy to consume or be broken because of high quality. You need money for fixing Direct TV. Direct TV will make us pay more money than we expect.
Finally, it is possible to hack TV programs easily and clearly. Some people do not want to pay a lot of money for Direct TV. However, they also want to see TV programs with high quality on Direct TV. Theses include the people who commit crimes like hacking. It may seem to be difficult to hack TV programs on Direct TV because of their high quality. Sad to say, the hacking system also becomes high quality with new technology. Also, the images will be clearer because of high quality if TV programs are installed illegally. That makes hackers install TV programs easily and clearly.
Supporters of Direct TV discuss the fact that it is a good solution because it gives us more choices of channels. However, this argument does not give more choices of varieties. One channel may have the specific genre of TV programs. The varieties will be limited. In fact, many channels broadcast the same programs again and again. It makes us bored. Also, it may be difficult to get new information or news.
It is very clear that Direct TV has some big problems. It is difficult to say that Direct TV is a completely good system. Direct TV should be considered about the solution to problems of the complicated connection, the high cost, and the easy hacking.
Reference
Anderson, H. (n.d.). What’s this Direct TV Hack Stuff All About?. Ezine Articles.Retrieved April 14, 2008 from http://www.thedirecttvadvantage.com/DirectTVHistory.htm
Direct TV Customers Reception Problem. Sattelite Information. RetrievedApril 14, 2008 from from http://www.satellitetv-site.com/articles-article.Id-51.htm
The History of Direct TV. (2006). The Direct TV Advantage. RetrievedApril 8,2008 from http://www.thedirecttvadvantage.com/DirectTVHistory.htm
Wong, D. (n.d.). Watch Satellite TV-Good Choice?. Ezine Articles. RetrievedApril 8, 2008 from http://ezinearticles.com/?Watch-Satellite-TV---Good-Choice?&id=494146
For Direct TV to take advantage of its benefit, it must address these problems; a complicated connection, high cost, and easy hacking.
First, Direct TV is very complicated to connect. There are many complicated operations because of high quality. It may be difficult to connect by yourself even though there is a manual for connecting. You may need a specialist for connecting. Also, the better the quality of the machines people have, the more complicated their systems are. When a previous television is broken, you might be able to fix it just through telephone customer service. It is not easy to fix Direct TV when it has problems, because of its being complicated.
Next, Direct TV is expensive for connecting and managing. In some cases, you may have to buy a specific TV and an antenna for Direct TV if you want to connect Direct TV. If you get all of the products for Direct TV, it will be expensive. In other cases, you may have to install Direct TV programs with money. You have to pay money every time when you install TV programs. Also, Direct TV is easy to consume or be broken because of high quality. You need money for fixing Direct TV. Direct TV will make us pay more money than we expect.
Finally, it is possible to hack TV programs easily and clearly. Some people do not want to pay a lot of money for Direct TV. However, they also want to see TV programs with high quality on Direct TV. Theses include the people who commit crimes like hacking. It may seem to be difficult to hack TV programs on Direct TV because of their high quality. Sad to say, the hacking system also becomes high quality with new technology. Also, the images will be clearer because of high quality if TV programs are installed illegally. That makes hackers install TV programs easily and clearly.
Supporters of Direct TV discuss the fact that it is a good solution because it gives us more choices of channels. However, this argument does not give more choices of varieties. One channel may have the specific genre of TV programs. The varieties will be limited. In fact, many channels broadcast the same programs again and again. It makes us bored. Also, it may be difficult to get new information or news.
It is very clear that Direct TV has some big problems. It is difficult to say that Direct TV is a completely good system. Direct TV should be considered about the solution to problems of the complicated connection, the high cost, and the easy hacking.
Reference
Anderson, H. (n.d.). What’s this Direct TV Hack Stuff All About?. Ezine Articles.Retrieved April 14, 2008 from http://www.thedirecttvadvantage.com/DirectTVHistory.htm
Direct TV Customers Reception Problem. Sattelite Information. RetrievedApril 14, 2008 from from http://www.satellitetv-site.com/articles-article.Id-51.htm
The History of Direct TV. (2006). The Direct TV Advantage. RetrievedApril 8,2008 from http://www.thedirecttvadvantage.com/DirectTVHistory.htm
Wong, D. (n.d.). Watch Satellite TV-Good Choice?. Ezine Articles. RetrievedApril 8, 2008 from http://ezinearticles.com/?Watch-Satellite-TV---Good-Choice?&id=494146
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Media Ownership Issue #2
According to this article, “Media ownership hearings begin with hundreds urging government to prevent cross ownership,” hundreds of people who are actors, writers, and musicians asked a government regulatory agency to prevent media big companies from growing bigger in California. Kevin Martin, who is the Commission Chairman, supported the idea that a company cannot own both newspaper and broadcast station in the same city. The cross-ownership rule was abolished in 2003, but the abolition caused a popular revolt, congressional action, and a federal appeals court decision. Before FCC makes new rules, whether a company can own some ownership in a same city was discussed in Tuesday’s hearing. While large media companies are asking for the rationale, many companies are hoping that the FCC would abolish cross-ownership rules for cost saving and increased profits.
There are three issues against the cross-ownership; increase of indecent programming, crisis of freedom of expression, and less competition needed in media.
First, indecent programs might increase when a company has cross-ownership. That there are many companies in media means that more various programs are offered. If a company had some ownership in television, however, the plentiful ideas would be limited. Actually, there are 300 channels in television in the U.S. now. And then, 5 companies control 25% of audience share. Because of the concentration of media, violent and sexual programs are increasing. Also, this means that
the programs for children have decreased. Actually, 50% of the programs for children were disappeared from 1998 to 2003. The cross-ownership makes the programs in the media indecent.
Second, small companies might lose the freedom of expression because of big companies take over in media. The places for free expression are lost by less variety in media. Small companies cannot compete with big companies. This means small companies cannot express themselves. If a big company monopolizes the media, Hispanics and blacks will be shut out because of the minorities. We have the rights of the free of expression. Every companies should express themselves free.
Third, there will be no competition with each other for making good programs if the number of companies in media decreases. This means the programs in media become worse. The companies need to compete with the rival companies, and they should make better programs and offer them. The competition in media does not exist if there are no rivals. They need the rival companies for making and offering good programs.
Consequently, it is obvious that cross-ownership affects the media. The coarse programs in media would increase, the freedom of expression would be lost, and the companies would lose the rivals making good influence. Thus, FCC should limit the rules of the media.
Reference
Media ownership hearings begin with hundreds urging government to prevent cross ownership. 2006, October 3. International Herald Tribune. Retrieved March 31, 2008 from http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/10/04/business/NA_FIN_US_Media_Ownership.php
There are three issues against the cross-ownership; increase of indecent programming, crisis of freedom of expression, and less competition needed in media.
First, indecent programs might increase when a company has cross-ownership. That there are many companies in media means that more various programs are offered. If a company had some ownership in television, however, the plentiful ideas would be limited. Actually, there are 300 channels in television in the U.S. now. And then, 5 companies control 25% of audience share. Because of the concentration of media, violent and sexual programs are increasing. Also, this means that
the programs for children have decreased. Actually, 50% of the programs for children were disappeared from 1998 to 2003. The cross-ownership makes the programs in the media indecent.
Second, small companies might lose the freedom of expression because of big companies take over in media. The places for free expression are lost by less variety in media. Small companies cannot compete with big companies. This means small companies cannot express themselves. If a big company monopolizes the media, Hispanics and blacks will be shut out because of the minorities. We have the rights of the free of expression. Every companies should express themselves free.
Third, there will be no competition with each other for making good programs if the number of companies in media decreases. This means the programs in media become worse. The companies need to compete with the rival companies, and they should make better programs and offer them. The competition in media does not exist if there are no rivals. They need the rival companies for making and offering good programs.
Consequently, it is obvious that cross-ownership affects the media. The coarse programs in media would increase, the freedom of expression would be lost, and the companies would lose the rivals making good influence. Thus, FCC should limit the rules of the media.
Reference
Media ownership hearings begin with hundreds urging government to prevent cross ownership. 2006, October 3. International Herald Tribune. Retrieved March 31, 2008 from http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/10/04/business/NA_FIN_US_Media_Ownership.php
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Media Ownership Issue #1
According to Dunbar in his article, “Media ownership issues return to center stage,” Federal Communications Commission has started to discuss about whether a company can have the ownerships of both newspaper and television stations in an area. There is the Chicago-based Tribune CO., which has the ownership of Los Angeles Times and KTLA-TV, Channel 5. However, the FCC is trying to prohibit the Tribune from having the ownerships of both newspaper and television stations in the same market. The Tribune requested to be able to renew the broadcast license and keep the ownerships. The FCC is seeking advice about the ownership limits from radio and television stations, and whether one company can have cross-ownerships.
There are three issues when one company has cross-ownership; the financial trouble, the monotony, and too much pressure from politics, audience, and other media.
First, the other companies may have financial trouble if one big company has cross-ownership. If the big company broadcast unified information or news through some media such as television, newspaper, radio, and so on, audiences will often see or hear the information or news. So, many audiences believe their information or news. While the big company will get a lot of profit, other small companies will get worse.
Second, the speeches or opinions which the company which has the cross-ownership give audiences would be monotonous. Generally, a company doesn’t offer audiences various speeches or opinions. If a company owns a newspaper and television station, the company gives audiences the same speeches or opinions even through the different institution. This prevents or slows down from the offering to audiences of various information or of various opinions.
Lastly, the company which has the cross-ownership may get too much pressure from various fields such as politics, audience, and media from other countries. If the big company which has the cross-ownership reports false news in the media, the influence will be very big. The speeches or opinions in media should be made very carefully.
Consequently, not only the company but also other companies have bad effects if a company has the ownership. Other companies will lose their financial profits. Audiences cannot get various information. And then, the company has too much pressure with their speeches or opinions. It is obvious that the company should not have cross-ownership.
Reference
Dunbar, J. (2006, October 3). Media ownership issues return to center stage. The Associated Press State & Local Wire. Retrieved March 21, 2008, from Lexis Nexis database.
There are three issues when one company has cross-ownership; the financial trouble, the monotony, and too much pressure from politics, audience, and other media.
First, the other companies may have financial trouble if one big company has cross-ownership. If the big company broadcast unified information or news through some media such as television, newspaper, radio, and so on, audiences will often see or hear the information or news. So, many audiences believe their information or news. While the big company will get a lot of profit, other small companies will get worse.
Second, the speeches or opinions which the company which has the cross-ownership give audiences would be monotonous. Generally, a company doesn’t offer audiences various speeches or opinions. If a company owns a newspaper and television station, the company gives audiences the same speeches or opinions even through the different institution. This prevents or slows down from the offering to audiences of various information or of various opinions.
Lastly, the company which has the cross-ownership may get too much pressure from various fields such as politics, audience, and media from other countries. If the big company which has the cross-ownership reports false news in the media, the influence will be very big. The speeches or opinions in media should be made very carefully.
Consequently, not only the company but also other companies have bad effects if a company has the ownership. Other companies will lose their financial profits. Audiences cannot get various information. And then, the company has too much pressure with their speeches or opinions. It is obvious that the company should not have cross-ownership.
Reference
Dunbar, J. (2006, October 3). Media ownership issues return to center stage. The Associated Press State & Local Wire. Retrieved March 21, 2008, from Lexis Nexis database.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)