Blog Post #4: Wikipedia

Wikipedia definitely has both its benefits and its drawbacks. For its benefits, Wikipedia is completely free of charge to access, it enables you to quickly find information on a topic, anybody can contribute or edit a page, and all references are listed at the bottom of the page. As for its drawbacks, although it can be a positive thing, allowing anybody and everybody to edit and contribute can lead to a number of issues. You never know the credibility of the contributor, and the information that is provided could be completely false. Finding Dulcinea actually provides an article stating 'The Top 10 Reasons Students Cannot Cite or Rely on Wikipedia' (http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/education/2010/march/The-Top-10-Reasons-Students-Cannot-Cite-or-Rely-on-Wikipedia.html) -- and the #1 reason listed is because Wikipedia actually mentions in their about section, "We do not expect you to trust us." In my opinion, that right there speaks loudly about Wikipedia's credibility. There is also another article, from Best Colleges Online that lists the '25 Biggest Blunders in Wikipedia History (http://www.bestcollegesonline.com/blog/2009/02/10/25-biggest-blunders-in-wikipedia-history/) which includes false death reports, libel, and miscellaneous hoaxes and mistakes -- which shows exactly how inaccurate information found on Wikipedia can be. Although I am sure that crowd sourcing definitely helps reduce the amount of information by allowing others to edit mistakes, I do not feel that it could possibly prevent misinformation all together. I believe that while people can correct mistakes that they find on Wikipedia, people can also change correct information into wrong information, as well. As for possible alternatives for Wikipedia's information, I think that a good idea would be for them to still invite crowd sourcing -- but have the contributors submit their information in a form so that it could be reviewed by a professional in that topic's area (which would be completely new for Wikipedia since they do not pay professionals, and only rely on crowdsourcing.) I also believe that to increase participation, Wikipedia could perhaps offer awards and titles to people who contribute often.

Blog Post #3: ProPublica

Why does ProPublica use Creative Commons licenses? According to Richard Tofel and Scott Klein's article, ProPublica uses Creative Commons licenses because they want their journalism to make an impact and spur reform -- and to make this all possible, ProPublica's articles need to be recirculated and reach as large of an audience as possible. So, by using Creative Commons licenses, ProPublica's articles are able to be republished in a safe manner -- meaning the original writer/journalist is credited and has control over who shares the article and how the article is shared, and no copyright laws are broken. Therefore Creative Commons licenses have increased the rate of ProPublica's articles being republished, resulting in more page views.

Here is the direct quote from the article explaining why ProPublica uses Creative Commons licenses:
"ProPublica’s mission is for our journalism to have impact — that is, for it to spur reform. Greater reach — the widest possible audience — doesn’t equate to impact, but it can help, and certainly doesn’t hurt. So we encourage it. And, of course, we started in 2008 with almost no audience or reputation at all, and needed — and still need — to increase the circle of people who know us, and our work. CC helps us achieve that goal." (http://www.niemanlab.org/2012/12/propublica-why-we-use-creative-commons-licenses-on-our-stories/)

ProPublica is a very interesting and innovative source of news, in that it provides investigative journalism to the public at absolutely no charge. ProPublica benefits readers who have an interest in investigative journalism, but lack the financial means to read it otherwise. ProPublica also helps gain publicity for investigative journalists who share heir articles, since the Creative Commons licenses allows their articles to safely be redistributed.

Here is a direct quote from the 'About Us' section on the official ProPublica website:

"Investigative journalism is at risk. Many news organizations have increasingly come to see it as a luxury. Today’s investigative reporters lack resources: Time and budget constraints are curbing the ability of journalists not specifically designated “investigative” to do this kind of reporting in addition to their regular beats. New models are, therefore, necessary to carry forward some of the great work of journalism in the public interest that is such an integral part of self-government, and thus an important bulwark of our democracy." (https://www.propublica.org/about/)

ProPublica and its Creative Commons licenses differ from traditional media by for one, being absolutely free. If you wanted to read an investigative journalism article in a traditional newspaper, you would most likely have to pay to buy it. And also, in that it allows ProPublica's articles to constantly be recirculated, thus reaching a much larger audience than traditional media. For instance, say an investigative journalism piece is printed in a newspaper, sure, that newspaper will reach all of its subscribers and whoever chooses to pay for it (and maybe even friends and family of people who have bought it) -- but the circulation of the article ends there. With ProPublica, people can share their articles via social media and it could reach people all over the globe.

I personally do believe ProPublica is an example of the future of traditional journalism. I think that as technology advances, all other forms of media need to progressively advance, as well. Meaning, since online newspapers and social media is a prime news source for many people today, traditional media has to make some changes in order to keep up with this technology in order to maintain an audience. In this case, I feel that traditional journalism, such as newspapers -- may soon be a dying breed. ProPublica has done so well since establishing Common Creative licenses -- as of the 10 year birthday of the pro-sharing license ProPublica saw an extra 4 million pageviews -- that I believe traditional journalism sources will soon follow suit.

According to Tofel and Klein:

"Creative Commons solves a particular problem for us — how to encourage republication at scale without tying up staff in negotiating deals and policing unauthorized uses. We’ve found it an invaluable aid in building our publishing platform, in reaching additional readers, and in maximizing the chance that the journalism we publish will have important impact."

By establishing Creative Commons licenses and allowing its readers to republish without infringing on copyright laws, ProPublica has reached a larger audience than ever imaginable -- and I believe that this could possibly just be the start of many other pro-sharing news sources.

Blog Post 2: The Diffusion of Innovation Today

According to the 1963 study conducted by Katz, Levin and Hamilton, The "Traditions of Research on the Diffusion of Innovation", there are seven components to the process of diffusion. The components are: 1) Acceptance, 2) Time, 3) A Specific Item, 4) Units of Adoption, 5) Channels, 6) Social Structure and 7) Value Systems. In 2015, I believe that this seven-step process is still relevant to digital communication and its diffusion in our society today.

Generally, I would say that society, for the most part, accepts digital communication as the chosen means of today's age to remain in contact with one another. For instance, almost everybody today now has a cell phone and uses it as their primary point of contact -- and some even no longer have a landline telephone at all. As for time, digital communication spread throughout our society rather quickly. However, cell phones specifically gone through many phases since making their first debut a few decades ago. But, since then, have evolved tremendously.

In regards to a specific item, once again, cell phones have had a tremendous amount of attention paid to them over the diffusion of digital communication process. For units of adoption, I think digital communication has paid a close amount of attention to this aspect. For instance, with the various forms of social media platforms, each one seems to have a very specific target audience in mind -- (i.e. Facebook started out as a way for college students to keep in contact.)

As for channels, this has played a very key part in the diffusion of innovation today. There's word of mouth -- people tell their friends how great their new iPhone is, which causes said friend to go out and buy one themselves. Then, there's also television advertising, online advertising, etc. In regards to social structure, I believe this is another big factor for the diffusion of innovation today. There is definitely a structure for how our society accepts and embraces the latest forms of technology. You have the early adopters, who will be first in line for the latest product, and you have the laggards who will wait until their old and loyal form of technology dies on them until they embrace something new.

And, finally, value systems are also important in regards to the diffusion of innovation today. There's the group of people who absolutely have to own the latest form of technology because they view it as a status symbol, and there's also those on the opposite spectrum who refuse to allow materialistic possessions control their lives -- and will purposely avoid the adoption of new innovation.

Overall, I feel that people are willing to accept and integrate digital communication into their life quite easily. Since our society today is so heavily digitally communicated based, I believe that if you refuse to accept the diffusion of innovation it will almost restrict you in everyday life -- as it is guaranteed that almost everyone around you has already adopted these forms of innovation. Cell phones have replaced home phones, email has replaced regular mail, and so on. Digital communication has integrated into all of our lives in some way or form, whether we like it or not.

Blog Response 1

Blog entry writing prompt: Postman describes how the horse stir-up changed the nature of battle and thus disrupted society in the 8th century. Similarly, bows and arrows were replaced by guns, which resulted in eradication of a society.

Thinking of digital media as tools, how have they affected our culture? Postman says the tools “become the culture.” Do you agree? Why or why not? Think of a comparable invention today that changed society and explore its potential impact.

Digital media has had a drastic impact on our culture over just the past decade alone. Digital media are definitely tools that we use at our disposal. We use Facebook as a tool to keep in touch with loved ones and post about our lives, we use email in place of post mail and refer to it constantly to communicate with people at work and school -- and that's just to name a couple key digital media aspects. I absolutely believe that Postman is right when he says that the tools "become the culture." Today, in 2015, it is almost impossible not to use digital media. Our whole culture has adapted to replacing previous tools of communication with all things social media. Our world today revolves around constantly improving on our digital media "tools." I would say the most comparable invention today that has changed society would have to be the smart phone. The smart phone has been a very powerful and dynamic invention -- which is constantly being improved and updated on. The reason that the smart phone has had such an impact on our society, is because of the digital media "tools" that it is capable of. That iPhone in your pocket has the whole digital world at your fingertips; you can catch up with your friends on Facebook, surf the internet on the Safari browser, email your boss from your iCloud account, watch a cute cat video on YouTube, call your mom from the phone function -- and that's just to name a few. It is quite common today for a person to not even have a landline telephone in their home, or send bill payments through post mail. I really do not see the smart phone going anywhere any time soon. I think that the potential impact can be even more incredible than what we already have witnessed. I mean, think about the FaceTime function -- with just the help from our phone/tablet/computer and wifi, we are able to video chat with people from all over the world. I can only begin to imagine what's next for the world of smart phones. Maybe while video chatting with a loved one overseas you can instantaneously purchase a plane ticket through your smart phone to visit them, or have a digital concierge in your smart phone to help you with everyday real life tasks? The possibilities are really quite endless.