After reading the article about Scratch and exploring the Scratch website, what are some observable benefits in creating a space to share student work?
One of the main points the article about Scratch made in reference to it's benefits was that it encourages young people (through comments and reinforcement) not just to "chat, browse, and interact but also [to] create and invent with new media" (p. 62). When looking at the site, this was very evident. All of the projects I looked at (whether games or stories) all had comments, suggestions, and encouragement on them. It seemed like a much more positive environment then most of the YouTube comments I've seen.
Scratch also expands the resources students have to both create new things and learn how programming works; the problem-solving strategies learned through utilizing these resources can carry over to many different aspects of life. Because simulations, games, animations, and stories can all be created using scratch, students with many different interests can find the site useful, entertaining, and educational.
For me, one of the benefits that could realistically be useful is utilizing Scratch for school projects. I plan to teach after I graduate, so I got kind of excited when the article discussed using Scratch for interactive learning. It described kids using the site to simulate life in another region or a trip to the earth's core. Students really have to learn about the topic to be able to teach and describe it to others, but by creating a program they can have fun while doing it and learn more about programming. Not only does using Scratch allow students to develop their own ideas, but they can collaborate with others to improve one another's works. This develops skills in group collaboration which are essential later in life. They can even develop companies in order to collaborate.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Our Own Wikipedia
The “power law distribution” or “long tail” phenomenon, as seen in behavior online on the Wikipedia, suggests that the concept of an average user of wikipedia is meaningless. Support your answer: how do you think a local, “JMU only” version of the Wikipedia would compare to the worldwide version? Would it be very similar? Higher quality? Less quality? Why?
Chapter five of Shirky's book describes Wikipedia in detail: how it started and why it works. In this description he discusses the graph comparing users to their contribution to Wikipedia. This graph is not a bell curve, but a "power of law distribution". Since a few select users contribute an overwhelming amount of the information while the vast majority of users only post occasionally, the graph has a steep (nearly vertical) slope starting off and then flattens out. Because of this distribution, the "average" user has no meaning.
If JMU created their own version of Wikipedia, I think it would also follow the "power law distribution" because there would be those individuals (possibly professors or very passionate students) who get really into contributing information/contribute most of it and those that only post one or two articles to meet a class requirement, because they are inspired by something they learn, or they wish to correct a typo. After it caught on, I think it would be about the same quality as the worldwide version. The same motives people have for contributing to the worldwide version are most likely present in JMU's student body and faculty: "a chance to exercise some unused mental capacities...vanity...and the desire to do a good thing" (p. 132-133). Shirky states that it becomes significantly harder to harm a wiki if even a few people care about it. The motives create interest and care which combats vandalism and unequal representation of an interest group. I also think that it would naturally be smaller than the worldwide version because fewer people are able to contribute to it.
Chapter five of Shirky's book describes Wikipedia in detail: how it started and why it works. In this description he discusses the graph comparing users to their contribution to Wikipedia. This graph is not a bell curve, but a "power of law distribution". Since a few select users contribute an overwhelming amount of the information while the vast majority of users only post occasionally, the graph has a steep (nearly vertical) slope starting off and then flattens out. Because of this distribution, the "average" user has no meaning.
If JMU created their own version of Wikipedia, I think it would also follow the "power law distribution" because there would be those individuals (possibly professors or very passionate students) who get really into contributing information/contribute most of it and those that only post one or two articles to meet a class requirement, because they are inspired by something they learn, or they wish to correct a typo. After it caught on, I think it would be about the same quality as the worldwide version. The same motives people have for contributing to the worldwide version are most likely present in JMU's student body and faculty: "a chance to exercise some unused mental capacities...vanity...and the desire to do a good thing" (p. 132-133). Shirky states that it becomes significantly harder to harm a wiki if even a few people care about it. The motives create interest and care which combats vandalism and unequal representation of an interest group. I also think that it would naturally be smaller than the worldwide version because fewer people are able to contribute to it.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Wiki Summary
The important points I gathered from the wiki podcast...
- A wiki in simple terms is an editable website.
- Wikis are different from other websites because they allow visitors to change information on them and, by doing this, create and collaborate with one another, even allowing visitors to link to places that do not yet exist.
- The idea for wikis came to Ward Cunningham (the creator of wikis) from using Hypercard stacks (MAC software that allowed users to build stacks and programs on their personal computers through hyperlinked information). He wanted to find a web equivalent.
- Wikipedia, while being the largest wiki, is not the only wiki. Anyone can create a wiki through sites such as Wikispaces, PBworks, or Google Sites.
- The three important buttons to creating a wiki are edit, save, and link. Edit makes the page into an editable document, while Save turns the document back into a site that others can edit, and Link allows you to create a new page that is linked to the previous one and start the editing process again.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Big Brother
Some news reports have suggested that the Bush administration used the USA Patriot Act to look at the e-mails of American citizens without a warrant. What’s your position if this was indeed the case? Should citizens be willing to give up their privacy? Does it bother you to know that your online communications are very potentially semi-private instead of private?
I've often heard the term "Big Brother" in reference to our government "keeping tabs" on our personal information, such as phone calls and now emails. If this is the case, and the government is looking at our information without warrants, then it encroaches on our 4th amendment right which is meant to protect us from unreasonable searches and seizures, since the government would be looking at our information without a warrant. If they do get a warrant, I think web accounts, email history, and hard drives should be searched to help solve cases. Many also argue that the right to privacy should be or is implied in the 1st amendment freedoms. If this is the case, then the government would definitely be violating our right to privacy.
I have mixed feelings on how much privacy citizens should be willing to give up and the potential semi-private nature of online communications. What if you are involved in a video game that involves killing people (since many of them do), and you are sending messages to a friend who also plays this game about the number of people you have killed. If you send a lot of these messages it will probably look suspicious to any government filters that are scanning your mail, you may be investigated, these harmless emails may be used against you some day, even though you were just talking about a game. This violation of privacy could do some harm. Personally I don't think I say things/too many things online that would be incriminating if taken out of context, so I'm not that bothered by the lack of privacy but more by the way this encroachment of privacy can escalate quickly (where will it stop?).
Overall right now, I think the benefit outweighs my personal feelings that it isn't right to invade people's lives like that. A former teacher at my high school was arrested this summer because a parent found a Facebook message where the teacher made inappropriate innuendos towards a student. He had been violating students at different schools for decades and hadn't gotten caught, but all the evidence (incriminating emails and messages to students and uploaded/downloaded child porn) was on his computer and in cyberspace. If this information had been searched in filters looking for such key words, maybe he would have been caught sooner. I think many criminals could be caught if emails and downloaded files were monitored, so it may be worth it, I'm still debating.
I've often heard the term "Big Brother" in reference to our government "keeping tabs" on our personal information, such as phone calls and now emails. If this is the case, and the government is looking at our information without warrants, then it encroaches on our 4th amendment right which is meant to protect us from unreasonable searches and seizures, since the government would be looking at our information without a warrant. If they do get a warrant, I think web accounts, email history, and hard drives should be searched to help solve cases. Many also argue that the right to privacy should be or is implied in the 1st amendment freedoms. If this is the case, then the government would definitely be violating our right to privacy.
I have mixed feelings on how much privacy citizens should be willing to give up and the potential semi-private nature of online communications. What if you are involved in a video game that involves killing people (since many of them do), and you are sending messages to a friend who also plays this game about the number of people you have killed. If you send a lot of these messages it will probably look suspicious to any government filters that are scanning your mail, you may be investigated, these harmless emails may be used against you some day, even though you were just talking about a game. This violation of privacy could do some harm. Personally I don't think I say things/too many things online that would be incriminating if taken out of context, so I'm not that bothered by the lack of privacy but more by the way this encroachment of privacy can escalate quickly (where will it stop?).
Overall right now, I think the benefit outweighs my personal feelings that it isn't right to invade people's lives like that. A former teacher at my high school was arrested this summer because a parent found a Facebook message where the teacher made inappropriate innuendos towards a student. He had been violating students at different schools for decades and hadn't gotten caught, but all the evidence (incriminating emails and messages to students and uploaded/downloaded child porn) was on his computer and in cyberspace. If this information had been searched in filters looking for such key words, maybe he would have been caught sooner. I think many criminals could be caught if emails and downloaded files were monitored, so it may be worth it, I'm still debating.
Why to Be Safe with WiFi
If your mother uses wifi at home to send you e-mail, and your home network is not protected by WEP or WPA, what reasons would you suggest to her for enabling one of these two protocols at home if the liability of reading those e-mails still exists once her message leaves your home, on it’s way to school?
When a message is sent using a wireless network, the message is transmitted from a computer to a wireless router through radio signals. Similar to how radio waves from one set of walkie talkies can be intercepted by another, signals from a computer to a router can also be intercepted. Now I haven't actually tried it, but it is apparently quite easy to intercept wireless signals, especially if the "interceptor" is within the range of the wireless network. For this reason, protection by WEP or, even better, by WPA (since WEP can be more easily decoded) is a really good idea for wireless users. These protections encrypt information and messages sent so that it is hard to decode if intercepted when it is sent from the computer to the wireless network. Why is this important? Since the information can be intercepted so easily, without encryption it's a free for all. The information can be used against you, used to find identifiable information on you, and even used to steal your identity. My mom is not always careful about what she sends me in emails (sometimes its a phone number, refill prescription number, or even a password to an online account). She sees that it goes from her email account to mine and often forgets what happens in between. Sending this kind of information is never smart, but it happens. Using encryption on messages helps keep their content much more secure from onlookers, hackers, and even the government, making it much harder to decipher them.
These protections, however, only protect the information from the computer to the router. There is still liability and risk when it enters the internet and travels to me at school. This information can still be seen, but since there is so much more information being transmitted on the "wired" internet it is more difficult for her message to be seen mainly because it is more difficult for one tiny email to be noticed. This does not mean she is not vulnerable at this point, she is just much less vulnerable then when her information had not yet entered the "wired" internet and her information could be seen by just about anyone outside her house. Although Abelson states in chapter five that "risks of weak systems are often rationalized in attempts to avoid the trouble of switching to more secure alternatives", I think the trouble of switching to any protection or the most secure protection is worth the advancement in security that we will receive.
When a message is sent using a wireless network, the message is transmitted from a computer to a wireless router through radio signals. Similar to how radio waves from one set of walkie talkies can be intercepted by another, signals from a computer to a router can also be intercepted. Now I haven't actually tried it, but it is apparently quite easy to intercept wireless signals, especially if the "interceptor" is within the range of the wireless network. For this reason, protection by WEP or, even better, by WPA (since WEP can be more easily decoded) is a really good idea for wireless users. These protections encrypt information and messages sent so that it is hard to decode if intercepted when it is sent from the computer to the wireless network. Why is this important? Since the information can be intercepted so easily, without encryption it's a free for all. The information can be used against you, used to find identifiable information on you, and even used to steal your identity. My mom is not always careful about what she sends me in emails (sometimes its a phone number, refill prescription number, or even a password to an online account). She sees that it goes from her email account to mine and often forgets what happens in between. Sending this kind of information is never smart, but it happens. Using encryption on messages helps keep their content much more secure from onlookers, hackers, and even the government, making it much harder to decipher them.
These protections, however, only protect the information from the computer to the router. There is still liability and risk when it enters the internet and travels to me at school. This information can still be seen, but since there is so much more information being transmitted on the "wired" internet it is more difficult for her message to be seen mainly because it is more difficult for one tiny email to be noticed. This does not mean she is not vulnerable at this point, she is just much less vulnerable then when her information had not yet entered the "wired" internet and her information could be seen by just about anyone outside her house. Although Abelson states in chapter five that "risks of weak systems are often rationalized in attempts to avoid the trouble of switching to more secure alternatives", I think the trouble of switching to any protection or the most secure protection is worth the advancement in security that we will receive.
Monday, October 11, 2010
Information Disclosure
The official website for the drug Olanzapine probably didn’t mention the fact it might cause diabetic symptoms in patients. Another website obviously did. Commercials on TV now are required to mention possible side effects. Should drug companies be required to come clean about situations like the one with Eli Lilly’s Olanzapine in their commercial websites? Why or why not?
I think drug companies should be required to come clean about all side effects and possible/suspected side effects of a drug on their web sites, but I don't think discussing each legal situation is necessary (although issuing a brief statement about such legal issues would probably be wise). As the internet becomes ingrained into the fabric of society, it used more and more as a "first step" and many times the only step in acquiring information. If someone wants relief of a disorder, in this case Schizophrenia, they may start with the internet and hold to that information when seeing a doctor. If they don't read a side effect the doctor mentions in passing, it may go in one ear and out the other.
The doctor also may not know every recent controversy over every drug they prescribe (that's a little scary to think about, but for general doctors especially that would mean researching tons of drugs daily which probably doesn't happen). The prescription inserts are made in bulk on paper and then the prescription may be stored in a pharmacy, warehouse, or your medicine cabinet for weeks or months before it is used. How can these listed side effects be guaranteed accurate? They really can't. A website, however, can be updated in the matter of a few seconds (depending, of course, on the amount of change and speed of browser). By requiring companies to post information about suspected side effects (that have a fairly legitimate/documented claim) help consumers truly discover the known risks of the medications they are taking at any point in taking the drug (not just when they are first prescribed it or it is first manufactured.
The legal information however is probably so numerous and dull that most people wouldn't bother reading it all. I personally don't care so much about who sued the drug company and for how much, but about what side effect caused them to press charges. Mentioning their was a lawsuit (or multiple law suits) during a particular time frame for a certain reason would probably alleviate confusion when also coming across sites that discuss such charges, like the documents released on the web about Olanzapine and the suspected side effects of diabetes.
I think drug companies should be required to come clean about all side effects and possible/suspected side effects of a drug on their web sites, but I don't think discussing each legal situation is necessary (although issuing a brief statement about such legal issues would probably be wise). As the internet becomes ingrained into the fabric of society, it used more and more as a "first step" and many times the only step in acquiring information. If someone wants relief of a disorder, in this case Schizophrenia, they may start with the internet and hold to that information when seeing a doctor. If they don't read a side effect the doctor mentions in passing, it may go in one ear and out the other.
The doctor also may not know every recent controversy over every drug they prescribe (that's a little scary to think about, but for general doctors especially that would mean researching tons of drugs daily which probably doesn't happen). The prescription inserts are made in bulk on paper and then the prescription may be stored in a pharmacy, warehouse, or your medicine cabinet for weeks or months before it is used. How can these listed side effects be guaranteed accurate? They really can't. A website, however, can be updated in the matter of a few seconds (depending, of course, on the amount of change and speed of browser). By requiring companies to post information about suspected side effects (that have a fairly legitimate/documented claim) help consumers truly discover the known risks of the medications they are taking at any point in taking the drug (not just when they are first prescribed it or it is first manufactured.
The legal information however is probably so numerous and dull that most people wouldn't bother reading it all. I personally don't care so much about who sued the drug company and for how much, but about what side effect caused them to press charges. Mentioning their was a lawsuit (or multiple law suits) during a particular time frame for a certain reason would probably alleviate confusion when also coming across sites that discuss such charges, like the documents released on the web about Olanzapine and the suspected side effects of diabetes.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Proprietary vs. Open Source Software
Some states and some companies are turning to open source software for a variety of reasons, some mentioned in this chapter. Some companies (say Microsoft) have gone on the record against open source software. Explain some of the advantages of using proprietary software and cite your advantages with websites that take or mention these positions.
Proprietary software is software for a computer that is licensed exclusively to one party with certain terms of use and licensing agreements, while open source software (OSS) allows those with a user license (not just those with copyright) to alter the software. OSS is also commonly in the public domain. Chapter 3 of Blown to Bits mentions that governments (such as Massachusetts) and different companies are trying to require Open Source Software and OpenDocument Format so documents and information can be exchanged among businesses and government offices and better software can be produced. This desire is creating a backlash of opposition against such formats.
Shawn Shell, a Principal of the technology consulting firm Consejo, Inc., states the point that proprietary software will keep software developers developing useful software. From his experience, he says he's seen many companies make a lot of money marketing OSS, "making money on support", yet they didn't make it. All of the developers don't get paid anything. If developers can't make a living off of creating these products, he argues, there is no point and they will eventually stop and find something that pays. Even if they continue making it, with no competition and compensation, the product will (most likely) not be as good. His final point in his argument that Proprietary software is not dieing out is that it this software comes with a certain security and protection. As a consumer (whether you're an individual or company) you can (to a certain extent) make sure you get what you paid for. You can call the help centers or if all else fails return the product, but with OSS Shell argues "there isn't a consistent and reliable model for ensuring that the software provided is fit for use as intended; it's everyone for themselves. There is no guarantee, warranty, or statement of suitability for any application whatsoever".With Proprietary software, the company offers support if the product fails.
Source:
Shell, S. (2005, October 14). Open Source Versus Commercial Software: Why Proprietary Software is Here to Stay. InformIT. Retrieved October 6, 2010, from http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=420290&seqNum=3
Proprietary software is software for a computer that is licensed exclusively to one party with certain terms of use and licensing agreements, while open source software (OSS) allows those with a user license (not just those with copyright) to alter the software. OSS is also commonly in the public domain. Chapter 3 of Blown to Bits mentions that governments (such as Massachusetts) and different companies are trying to require Open Source Software and OpenDocument Format so documents and information can be exchanged among businesses and government offices and better software can be produced. This desire is creating a backlash of opposition against such formats.
Shawn Shell, a Principal of the technology consulting firm Consejo, Inc., states the point that proprietary software will keep software developers developing useful software. From his experience, he says he's seen many companies make a lot of money marketing OSS, "making money on support", yet they didn't make it. All of the developers don't get paid anything. If developers can't make a living off of creating these products, he argues, there is no point and they will eventually stop and find something that pays. Even if they continue making it, with no competition and compensation, the product will (most likely) not be as good. His final point in his argument that Proprietary software is not dieing out is that it this software comes with a certain security and protection. As a consumer (whether you're an individual or company) you can (to a certain extent) make sure you get what you paid for. You can call the help centers or if all else fails return the product, but with OSS Shell argues "there isn't a consistent and reliable model for ensuring that the software provided is fit for use as intended; it's everyone for themselves. There is no guarantee, warranty, or statement of suitability for any application whatsoever".With Proprietary software, the company offers support if the product fails.
Source:
Shell, S. (2005, October 14). Open Source Versus Commercial Software: Why Proprietary Software is Here to Stay. InformIT. Retrieved October 6, 2010, from http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=420290&seqNum=3
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)