Watching Wikiliaty a year later

Time does change things. Or should I say that time can change my opinion. Watching Steve Colbert's "Wikiality'' nearly a year and half after I first saw it shows how quickly little respected things on the Internet can gain credibility. Just over a year ago, you could label me a big doubter of Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia. Most of my skepticism came from the fact that Wikipedia is a website that anyone can edit. I was also aware of reports about people deliberately editing incorrect and harmful information into entries on Wikipedia. What I didn’t anticipate was how the passion that many people have for the subjects they are interested in would drive the accuracy of Wikipedia, which is what we’re finding today. Researchers are more receptive to the value of Wikipedia. And I guess like almost anything on the Internet, people find a way of seeking out the credible information.
I think that Colbert’s satire still serves as a reminder that anyone using Wikipedia should be aware of the pitfalls that come with using a site that allows anyone to edit. I also still advocate that you verify anything you plan to use from the site.

Collaborative effort on Wikipedia succeeds

Wow! It was great to see our Wikipedia entry today. As we started working on the assignment, I remember saying to my teammates that I was having a difficult time wrapping my arms around what we were supposed to be doing.
As I read the assignment and outlined an approach, what we were supposed to be doing became clear. However, I continued to struggle with how it would all come together. This was my first attempt at producing a paper through a wiki. I’ve walked away from this assignment with an understanding and a major appreciation for that process. I was impressed with the final project on PBworks and how the group and individual pages came together.
In the context of whether how working on the assignment has changed my mind about Wikipedia, I must say that it has changed it slightly. I can certainly understand the amount of work that people who care about a subject will put into making sure it is correctly represented. So I think that I can approach Wikipedia from this frame of mind in the future. However, as a journalist, I’ll still need to verify anything that I find on Wikipedia. For me Wikipedia remains a good starting point for research. The vast amount of references that come with entries provide a good source for tracking down additional sources and verification that journalism requires.
And finally, a shout-out the Group 3 team – Camille, Josie and Julia. The early concerns we had about producing the project and meeting deadline quickly dissolved as they took on various aspects of the project to get and keep us going. Awesome team! A big thumbs up to each of them.

Comparing Wikipedia and Encyclopedias

There are some obvious differences in using the online encyclopedia, Wikipedia, and a traditional encyclopedia, World Book. For this assignment, I’m comparing the entry, Pulitzer Prize. It’s something that every student journalist would research at some point.
When looking at the Wikipedia entry, the thing that stands out immediately is the invitation to improve the article by adding information. The second thing that stands out is the organization of the material. The researcher is given a short introduction to the topic and then a list of “Contents’’.
In World Book, the researcher must thumb through several pages to find specific categories of information about the topic. So you’ll notice immediately, that using the encyclopedia will require more time. However, you could find yourself clicking on link after link in Wikipedia and really getting distracted.
It’s been years since I’ve used a traditional encyclopedia. (The display in the library was so pretty that I took the attached picture.) I expected the encyclopedia to be very outdated and was surprised when World Book included the 2010 Pulitzer Prize winners.
I think that each method has its advantages. I feel more confident in the accuracy of the information in a traditional encyclopedia. Without a doubt, Wikipedia wins out on timeliness, but because anyone can edit it, the researcher must always be concerned about its accuracy.

Brian Dixon pushes use of social media

Brian Dixon’s presentation to our class was interesting for a couple of reasons. I liked that he talked about how social media could be beneficial beyond the classroom. From my personal standpoint, this wasn’t all that new. I already used Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter. Depending on what’s going on, I’ll post pretty regularly to Facebook. I have my resume on LinkedIn and I’ve used it to search for and network for jobs. I’m not a regular tweeter, but I do follow people and news sites and I have followers. (You can follow me at @swilmore).
I’ve essentially compartmentalized how I use various social networking sites. I use Facebook to keep up with family and friends. I use Twitter to keep abreast of news events. I find that I tend to pick up new people to follow based on news events. I’m following CNN anchor Soledad O’Brien and would suggest others in the class follow her (@Soledad_Obrien) also because of her recent documentary: “Don’t Fail Me: Education in America’’. I haven’t been able to watch it yet, but through Twitter, I’ve kept up with the feedback on it. Finally I use LinkedIn for professional reasons.
I think it’s a good idea that Brian is pushing his students to develop professional relationships on the various social networking sites. This is very good advice for them.

"Made to Stick'' again

When I re-read Made to Stick, I was reminded of just how much of what we do is based on storytelling. As a journalist, I’m always looking at the best way to tell a story. In essence, I put the “Made to Stick’’ principles to work every day in my work. Currently, I’m working as a headline writer. My goal is to grab the readers’ attention and make them want to invest time in the story associated with the headline. In most cases a headline will incorporate all of the six principles outlined in the book by Chip and Dan Heath:
1. Simple: You want the reader to understand quickly
2. Unexpected: Readers want you to tell them something they don’t know. That’s news.
3. Concrete: It’s fact based
4. Credibility: Readers trust that what you’re telling them is right.
5. Emotions: You tell readers why this story is important to them
6. Stories: Every good headline tells a story
I think a primary key to incorporating the principles of “Made to Stick’’ into other disciplines, such as teaching is to think about the audience and what you’re trying to deliver to them. Maintaining that focus and applying the Heath brothers’ principles should yield a successful presentation every time.

Julia Fallon's discussion

Listening to Julia Fallon on Monday reminded me of many of the conversations/presentations I've heard about Twitter. While I just recently sent my first tweet, I've been following people and organizations on the social networking site for a couple of years now. Twitter and FB are important parts of the news business. In fact, you're looked at with suspicion if you're not active on Twitter and FB.

Julia and/or Bruce also mentioned how some news organizations quote people's Twitter accounts. Twitter and FB are great for finding out information about people. And my own experience of being quoted from my FB account showed me how important it is to always be mindful of what you say, especially on a social networking site.

However you do have to be careful. I can see how beneficial these sites can be to upper grade levels, but if I were a parent, I don't think I'd want my kids on the sites even if it's supposed to be for school work.

My Prezi experience

I saw my first Prezi presentation a few months ago. I was glad that someone in the audience asked the presenter which program he was using. I made a note to try it, but didn't get around to it until this class. While working on my presentation, I was reminded of what I thought of the first Prezi that I saw. I was initially impressed with it. But as the presentation continued, I thought it was too busy. I was mindful of that in my presentation after it was pointed out in one of the tutorials.

I see the potential for all kinds of uses with Prezi. It's ideal for simple presentations like the introduction for the course, but I can see it being used to give instructions and to tell stories. In some ways it reminded me of Photo Story for Windows.

As for pulling my Prezi presentation together, I found it easy to get started. Uploading photos was very easy. Adding color to the page was simple also. I liked that. I also liked the ease of dragging content around the page and resizing it. I stumbled several times though when trying to edit copy that I'd already written on the Prezi canvass. Honestly, it still feels like chance when I try to open the text editing box.

Prezi introduction for Edu 653

Sharon introduction on Prezi