Commenting on Group Members Blogs

Here are links to the comments I made on my group members' blogs.

Kristen McNamee: Scrapblogging
Kristen McNamee:Slashdot post

Theresa Bartley: You Tube Stars
Theresa Barley: Google's New Search

Kristen Mastrola:Post on a Teammate's Blog
Kristen Mastrola: Vanity Search

Jig Saw Puzzle | Final Post

Over the length of time that I was an editor for Wikipedia, the jig saw puzzle article did not experience much change. Considering the article consisted of lots of interesting, high quality, cited content when I first encountered it, this wasn't a suprise to me. With the exception of a couple other editors who made a few, small additions, I was the only person who added information. I created a section, and that is where I inserted some of the new information. I am under the impression that this article was monitored pretty closely, since whenever vandalism or misinformation occured(or appeared) it was quickly removed whereas other articles I've seen would contain spam for months before anything would be done about it.

I am slightly dissapointed with the response( or lack there of) I recieved. The only edits that were made to my work were grammer corrections, I was hoping people would add to or improve on the content I added to the section I created(first edit back in the beginning of march). but nobody ever did.

Links to posts discussing my edits

Edit one

Edit two

Edit three

Comparison of most recent version of wikipedia article with the version existing right after I made my first edit.

Comparison

In Class Learning | Resonance Partnership Blog

Sometime shortly after the tragic events at Virginia Tech occurred our class read the following article:Virginia Tech: Social Media in Crisis Planning. This article discusses a CDC panel topic on public health care blogging in a social media world in which information is disseminated real time during a crisis. This panel discussion took place a day after the terrible tragedy at Virginia Tech. This crisis highlighted the need for officials to use social media tools as part of their crisis management plan. If the social media were viewed as a tool for enhancing communication it would be more widely recognized and its use would be more widespread. As the Virginia Tech tragedy was unfolding although school officials did not make use of these tools students used mobile phones, digital cameras, social networks such as Flickr, Facebook and MySpace, blogs and video to communicate with each other and to document the tragedy in real time. The question people were asking was why weren't the instant tools: Text and voice messages used by the university to notify students? Since almost all students are wired....this is the best way to communicate with them. Certainly during the Virginia Tech tragedy it could have saved lives by for example telling students not to go to class and to stay in their dorm rooms with the doors locked. In fact it would be advisable for every organization, business, schools and universities ( and even families) to use these tools as part of their crisis planning.

This article was a real "eye opener" in that it made me more conscious of the fact that today, people can be instantly connected to one another electronically though text messaging, IM, cell phones, and e-mails. And it is critical that our society take full advantage of these modes of instant communication especially during an emergency. Therefore, an integral part of any crisis management must include developing a social media strategy to enhance communication that disseminates vital information in real time especially during an emergency.

In Class learning | DIGGS.com

A week ago our class read and discussed an article titled, How Dig.com is democratizing the news. The subject of this article is the Intenet site Digg.com. This site was founded in 2004 by Kevin Rose and today has more than 180,000 registered users and serves up 6 million pages every day. Digg is a user driven social content website. What this means is that everything on Digg is submitted by its community of users which are its registered users. After a user submits an article a video or any other content, other people read and view ths submission and Digg what they like best. If the story becomes popular and receives enough Diggs (user endorsement), it is promoted to the front page for the millions of visitors to see. Each registered user who supplies the content to the site determines what news, videos and podcasts will appear on the site. The site refers to itself as a digital media democracy. The concept of Digg is not original. Rose admits that his site was inspired by and is a combination of such sites as Slashdot, MySpace, and Del.icio.us. These are are all community-driven website however unlike these Dig.com allows users to view all the submitted stories. Dig gives complete control to the community. If a story or video has many Digs -they are then elevated to the homepage.

I found the concept of this site very interesting so I decided to explore it further on my own by visiting the site its self and reading about it on wikipedia. It is obvious by the fact that it has a very large user base and that there are rumors that Yahoo wants to buy it that this site is extremely popular. I was a little disappointed to learn that the one story that catapulted this site to "stardom" was when Paris Hilton's cell phone was hacked, someone close to the perpetrator posted a blog item about it to Digg, and the story quickly hit the homepage. The next morning, Digg was the No. 1 result in both Yahoo and Google. This episode would make Digg appear to be no more than a tabloid. The Digg content is however much broader and wide ranging. It contains articles on science, technology, current news, politics and entertainment. Moreover, its content is ever expanding and is really limitless. Many criticisms have been directed at Diggs. Some feel that users have too much control over content, allowing things to be blown out of proportion and misinformation to flourish. The site has also allowed stories to appear on its site that companies paid for. Another criticism that I find particularly disturbing is that faulty or misleading articles can reach many users quickly, blowing out of proportion the unsupported claims or accusations. I guess this type of criticism can be aimed at the whole internet. It has also been reported that the top 100 Digg users controlled 56% of Digg's frontpage content, and that a small group of just twenty individuals had submitted 25% of the frontpage content.

Final Post | Trigeminal Neuralgia

The wikipedia article for Trigeminal Neuralgia was very well written and had an extensive collection of information . It took me a while to come up with new information to add. Because it had such a thorough collection of information when I first encountered it, it hasn't really changed much since then. For each of my three edits, I added new information, which still appears on Wikipedia.

Here are links to my edits:

Edit 1

Edit 2

Edit 3

Job Interview | Final Post

Compared with the other articles I monitored throughout the course of this project (beginning mid February), the job interview entry experienced the least amount of activity, with at least a week seperating some edits and only 40 edits (including the ones I did) between my first edit and the most recent version of the article. Durring this time I was the only person to add new information (although a few external links were added, but were quickly erased). Edits made by others fell into the following three categorie: 1. Vandalism; 2. Removal of vandalism;
3. Grammar corrections (the majority of which were made to information that I added). Overall I was dissapointed with the progression of the article, it didnt change much since the beggining of the project. I consider the article to be well written, of high quality and relevant content. However, there is a tremendous amount of information that could be added as well as more high quality external links. Also many more citations are needed (curently there is only one citation which I added) before this article can be considered up to encyclopedic standards.

Summary of my contributions
My first edit consisted of creating a new section which I called Preparation to which I added a paragraph of information. I aslo added information to an already existing section titled, Process. For my second edit I contributed more information to the Process section. Finally, for my third edit, I corrected a grammar error, and also inserted a citation (to information I had added during my second edit) in response to a negative reaction I had recieved. The only changes made by others to my edits were grammar corrections which I felt enhanced what I had written. As mentioned earlier in this post, I did receive a negative response on the discussion page of the Job Interview article, related to the following information which I had added during my second edit.

"A candidate should follow up the interview with a thank you letter expressing their appreciation for the opportunity of meeting with the company representative."

And here is the response I recieved
"Should? According to whom? Is this an encyclopedia or a self help book? It could be equally argued that the company should write a thank you letter to express appreciation for meeting such a wonderful candidate. And by the way, WTF still writes letters these days? "Klafubra
19:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)"

To which I immediately wrote out the following response expressing how I felt. However after I finished writing it I was able to restrain from posting it on wikipedia.
"Your lack of any substancial comments is apparently why you had to resort to using curse words. Being courteous, considerate and appreciative are still very much accepted behaviors and the skill of letter writing is alive and well and practiced by literate and intelligent people. And by the way who said an e-mail and a "letter" are mutually exclusive? Finally, nowhere do I preclude the possibility of the company also writing to the candidate. "
Links to my blog post where I originally discussed each edit
Edit 1
Edit 2
Edit 3

Wilmington, Delaware | Final Post

First Impressions of this Wikipedia article, and disccusion of my contributions

When I first encountered the Wikipedia article for my home town (March 22), I was very impressed since, it contained an extensive and accurate collection of information. I even learned a little about the place I've called home for almost my entire life. When I browsed the history logs I was amazed by how often the article was edited (at least one edit a day). For my first two edits I was unable to come up with any relevant information to contribute to the already existing sections, so I created new ones. Each time I created a section I inserted subsections and added one or two facts to each . For my third edit I was finally able to come up with information to add to an existing section that was created by someone other than my self.

The following is a more detailed description(than given above) of my first two edits.

EDIT ONE: Section Title- Media, Subsection Titles- Radio, Television, Newspaper

EDIT TWO: Section Title-Shopping, Subsection Title- Malls

Below are links to my previous posts discussing the edits I made:

Edit One

Edit Two

Edit Three

Community's Reaction to my contributions:

Over the course of this project, only my first edit was altered, the other two were left untouched.

Details of alterations made to first edit:

The section heading was not changed. The Radio and Television subsection was merged into one with a new title- Radio, Television, and Film. The information I added to Radio and Television and Film was included in the newly designated subsection with no additional information added by others. Also, the Newspaper section was renamed, Publications, and contained only the facts I had contributed, with no new facts added. Finally, a third subsection was created titled Portrayal in the Media, and numerous facts were added some of which were taken from a section titled Trivia, which was then deleted.

My Interpretation of Community Reaction

At first it struck me as odd that the titles of my subsection were broadened (Newspaper changed) without any additional information included, which would have warranted broadening the titles. For example, no magazines were added to the new Publications section, but then I recalled that this was one of the beneficial characteristics of Wikis, which was to have other people expand on your ideas. By not removing my contributions, but instead either leaving them untouched or building on them suggests that the community felt they were worthwhile and enhanced the quality of the article. Overall I was satisfied with the changes that were made to my additions and felt they improved what I had written.

Article Progression
The activity of the article remained at the same high level throughout the entire length of this project. And the quality of the paper improved over time. The edits made by other people (with the exception of those made to my additions) fell under the following four categories:
1. Vandalism (curse words); 2. Removing of vandalism ( which usually occurred within minutes suggesting the article was monitored very closely); 3. Grammar improvements (made up the majority of edits); 4. Addition of facts (all interesting, accurate and insightful).
Below is a link to a page comparing the article as it was at the start of this project with the most recent version.
Comparison

Job Interview | Edit # 3

For my third edit to the Job Interview, Wikipedia Article, I corrected the following grammar error(it's in bold):" Candidates generally dress slightly better than they will be expected to wear to work, with a suit being appropriate for a white-collar job interview, but jeans being appropriate for an interview as a plumber. I did this by changing the sentence so that it would read the following way (changes in bold): "Candidates generally dress slightly better than they would for work, with a suit being appropriate for a white-collar job interview, but jeans being appropriate for an interview as a plumber."

I also added a citation to a sentence I had added during a past edit. In order to add the citation I needed to add a reference section, so I did that as well.

Comment on Team Mate's Adword Post

I recently read a post on my teammate, Kristen Mastrola's Blog. This post describes an article on the Adword internet site. The article discusses a pricing model for internet sites called pay-per-action. Pay-per-action allows the advertiser to pay based on measures and factors established by the advertiser, and the advertiser only pays if the criteria he/she establishes are met.

I found this post to be very interesting especially the pricing method that was discussed. The challenge for all advertisers is always how do you evaluate if what you are advertising is effective and then what is the most appropriate mechanism for paying for such advertising. The internet is a unique medium of advertising. It is very technological based and therefore offers very unique ways for targeting customers and also for evaluting the effectiveness of your advertising. Pricing an ad that is tied directly to how effective that ad is especailly if based on measures developed by the advertiser is a very creative way of pricing and should be welcome by both advertisers and the for profit internet sites.

Upcoming Event | Emerging Marketing Technologies Workshop

I recently read this article on one of the required blogs.
It is about how on May 24-25 a workshop will be held at St. Norbert College on Emerging Marketing Technologies. This seminar will discuss the latest technologies, tools and methods for reaching customers. This workshop will not only inform and instruct the attendees on the latest technology tools to improve marketing but will also allow paticipants to apply the specifics of the technologies to their actual business. According to the announcement participants will learn: 1. The newest terminology surrounding the latest marketing tools, 2. The most popular technology driven markeing vehicles, and identify which will work best for your customer and how to combine this with your existing marketing strategy, and 3. Use the tools and techniques and knowledge gained to execute an effectuve marketing campaign. Aas to Who Should Attend? Sales and markeing executives and directors, those responsible for internet markeing and ad agency media directors for all size corporations and organizations.

I was very excited to see that the field of marketing attempts to keep pace with the newest technolgies and the latest research. Our society is becoming more complex, consumer tastes are more descriminating and sophiticated and the number of media outlets continue to expand and grow. The markeing professional must be aware of all of these technology advancement and be able to take fullest advantage of them in order for the marketing function to contribute to the success of a business. Since it is virtually impossible for any one individual to learn on his own about all the latest marketing tools and technologies avaialbe in the field of marketing it is necessary for the marketing professional to reglarly attend workshops, seminars and lectures in order to gain this knowledge and to keep his/her skills up to date.

Trigeminal Neuralgia: Edit # 3

I added the following information to the treatment section of the Trigeminal Neuralgia Article: "Electric and Magnetic Field or EMF for short is a new treatment being used to treat Trigeminal Neuralgia."
I felt it was important to add a new treatment to the article, since every patient seems to have a different response to each new possible remedy, so every new treatment that is developed gives hope to those stricken with TM that there is a chance that someday there will be a cure for this terrible affliction.

Jig Saw Puzzle: Third Wiki Edit

For my final edit to the wiki article for the jig saw puzzle I decided to contribute to the variation section by adding the following information: "There are also computer versions of jigsaw puzzles which have the advantages of zero clean up as well as no risk of loosing any pieces."

Wilmington: Third Edit

I decided to contribute to the Education Institution section of the wikipedia article by adding the following schools: Albert Einstein Academy, Wilmington Montessori, St. Mary Magdalen, St. Anthony Grade School, and the Immaculate Heart of Mary School. These are all private grade schools that are not high schools. Previously the article only listed grade schools that were public, and private grade schools that were also high schools. Now parents using wikipedia as a source will have a more complete list of schools to choose from to send their young ones to.
I also rearranged this section since it originally had two paragraphs, one discussing public schools, and the other one discussing both private schools and charter schools. I thought this was misleading since charter schools(free to parents) and private schools are different, so I split the second paragraph into two.

Required Blog Article

I recently read this post on slashdot, titled "Some Schools Ending Laptop Programs." It is a shorter version of an article discussing this issue in the New York Times. The article reports that highschools, middleschools and elementary schools that had implemented laptop programs, which gave a laptop in every student, are now abandoning these programas. Schools instituted
these programs "... to prepare their students for a technology-driven world and to close the so-called digital divide between students who had computers at home and those who did not."
Although many school administrators and teachers say, "laptops in the classroom have motivated even reluctant students to learn, resulting in higher attendance and lower detention and dropout rates," they also point out that academic performance as measured through standardized test scores and grades have not improved since the programs were implemented and that the benefits do not outweigh the costs associated with these programs. In addition to the money originally used to finance these programs, such costs include maintenance costs, time spent tightening network security to deal with students hacking into local business and students viewing pornography sites, increased cheating problems, and computers operating slow due to so many students using them all at one time. Students are usually able to find ways around the tightened security networks. Money is being spent on maintenance fees as opposed to training teachers who are reluctant to incorporate these computers into their lesson plans. I think in order for the computers to be effective teachers need to be trained on how to properly use them as a teaching tool. I think placing the computes in a computer lab which would only be available to the students at certain times of the day would be more appropriate and would avoid many of the problems described above. It seems to me that many of the problems assocaited with giving each student a computer could have been foreseen if the schools had sent enough time researching the costs and benefits of this program and developing an appropriate implementation plan for their use. I definitely believe information technology if used correctly would benefit students and enhance their learning experience. In my opinion it is not necessary to give each student his or own computer. Students should definitely have access to a computer but only to do specific assignments and perhaps an additional couple of hours a week to allow them to practice and experience how useful an education and learning tool it can be. However, there must be strict controls to prevent students from visiting prohibited entertainment or pornographic sites. If used propely computers can make school and education more interesting and more enjoyable and thereby enhance the learning esperience. It also struck me that one major error made by the schools was that they immediately instituted the laptop program throughout entire school districts. What they should have done is first test the program in one school before implementing it throughout the school distirct. I am certain if this were done all the problems would have been identified and corrected, and I believe the laptop program would have been successful. Finally, teachers should have been consulted more extensively prior to instituting such a major program. Obtaining the full support of teachers is critical to the success of any educational program.