News Report # 2

Chao, Loretta. "Schools Defy Beijing, Remove Web Filter." Online.wjs.com. New York Times, 17 Sept. 2009. Web. 21 Sept. 2009. .

Summary

Schools in many Chinese School Districts are having trouble with a censorship software called Green Dam. On the computers that it was properly installed on there has been complications with McAfee anti-virus. Many of the computers even shut down immediatly when the computer was run with the Green Dam censorship software. How "mandatory" this software has become is unclear as many schools have simply not installed it and others have begun uninstalling it. The Chinese Government is implementing this to block pornographic material and other inapropriate material for students. This program was created by two Chinese companies and was supposedly mandated by the Chinese Ministry of Industry to be shipped with all computers sold in China beginning in July. After the announcement went public consumers and major industry officials rebeled. They claimed it took freedom of choice. Then asked authorities to reconsider.

Response

I could see this happening in the school systems in our own country's school system. This is the dilemna that all authorities are having with censoring all the available information that comes along with the internet and any other way of spreading information. Schools should monitor their students internet activity in a slightly less extreme way. You could just keep track of what sites the students have been to and then search for any unacceptable websites. Then they could punish the student accordingly. Also requiring a certain software to be issued with all computers sold in China is unfair to the computer companies and the consumers. It will be interesting to see how Chinsese authorities enforce this act.

Reading Response # 2

"Can Wikipedia Ever Make the Grade" Brock Read Chronicle of Higher Education; 10/27/2006, Vol. 53 Issue 10, pA31-A36, 6p, 3 color

Summary

This article gives two perspectives on the online encyclopedia Wikipedia.com. On one hand wikipedia is great and allows the world a stage to share, and compare information. On the other hand people can post false information either maliciously or not. In some cases this false information was caught and changed quickly by the wikipedia staff. In other cases like Mr. Seigenthaler who was accused on Wikipedia of being involved in the Kennedy assasination it took him complaining about the article for it to get changed. In the four months that it was posted online many people took it as factual and it was even published in books. These books have since been "debunked" but the damage was already done. So even though wikipedia created a place for scholars to rub elbows with the general public, if not monitered correctly could cause harm. Wikipedia has taken steps and vowed to focus more on the quality of the information as opposed to how many topics they can have posted.

Response

In the techological world we are living in, Wikipedia has become a household name. People love the simplicity of just hopping online and typing in their favorite celebrity (Britney Spears), or any random topic they need info on and it just poping up. Information at your fingertips is great and if not for Wikipedia another online encylopedia of this nature would have been created. Thats is why I believe scholard need to embrace this site as it is not going anywhere. In the article it said many scholars have taken on the mentality that "if you can't beat em' join em'". If there are problems with accuracy on the site then scholars and the creaters of Wikipedia need to work together to correct the problem. This is a much better option than just shunning the website altogether.

Reading Report # 1

This article "Web Hoaxes, Counterfeit sites, and other Spurious Information on the Internet" was written to educate Internet users about false information found that resembles truthful information. Disinformation, parody, spoof, malicious, fictitious, and comedy are all forms of false information. This Information is allowed on the Internet because of freedom of speech. Although if someone where to use a site for reference when seeking medical advice, someone could get hurt. That is why use should always be somewhat skeptical before banking on the information to be true. Spoof and parody sites are easier to spot because of the humor involved. Sites like MartinLutherKing.org are a horse of a different color because at first look it seems like a legitimate Martin Luther King website with pictures and quotes but as you read into the site a little deeper connections with white supremacy groups surface. Many different aspects of our life is affected by these websites. From websites claiming male pregnancy is possible to false information about business mergers and acquisitions. There are many groups devoted to exposing these false websites but web literacy is very important. There is nothing worse then writing a research paper with false information on it. A good way to spot false websites is to check the URL. Like if a .com is expected and it says .org. Look for other obvious signs like humorous or satirical language. Check suspicious domain names, and be conscious of any suspicious links. Also the advanced search option can keep you from stumbling upon any disinformation by accident.

News Report #1

McMillan, Robert. "Privacy Missing From Google Books Settlement." Pcworld.com. PC World Communications inc., 28 Aug. 2009. Web. 31 Aug. 2009.

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/171089/privacy_missing_from_google_books_settlement.html

Summary

Google is attempting to digitize the world’s books in a project called Google Books Library Project. Library activists and others wonder if Google digitizes all the books how will they control what the user is reading. This is one of the questions left unanswered for librarians and privacy experts are dealing with as Google tries to settle a lawsuit by copyright holders and publishers. This is a touchy subject with many librarians, even ones who routinely delete borrower information. The American Library Association has tried hard to keep the privacy for their patrons even in the face of the Patriot Act. Many are calling for Google to take formal steps to insure the privacy of authors and publishers instead of just making statements. Google has kept the privacy for other programs they have, like blurring faces on Google Street view, and keeping records for Google Health users separate from other instances of Google. This is difficult for others to stomach because the details are really the important factor in the case. Last year Google did come to a settlement agreement in a lawsuit brought on by publishers and authors who claimed Google Books violated their copyrights. The Southern District Court of New York will decide if they want to accept this agreement or not by September 4^th.

Response

This entire argument reminds of the music industry and how they are going through the same copyright issues that author and publishers are going through right now. This Google Books Project is just one of the privacy concerns the internet has brought on the world. It is difficult to say exactly what is fair to authors and publishers monetarily. In my opinion information should be free but that’s not exactly fair to people who spend their time and money on writing and publishing books. So that is the dilemma the Southern District Court is faced with. The information that could be located on the internet would expand greatly if the average person were allowed free access to all the books in Google Books. I don’t think we will ever completely do away with hard copy books just because they might be available on the internet, but I believe the amount of books will decrease, just because they will become unnecessary.