Internet Plagiarism

One of the most important things to avoid in college: Internet Plagiarism. One wrong or missing citation and the student could end up failing the assignment. An already-used research paper could mislead the professor teaching abilities. Brook J. Sadler provides ten arguments as to why Internet plagiarism is wrong. Some of her arguments are interchangeable, such as the topic of students who plagiarize do not benefit from the hard work and the topic of how plagiarism prevents opportunities for the student to take pride in creative self-expression. Although some of the arguments ring true, like how it is unfair to other students and not beneficial for the student themselves, I believe she spread out the arguments too thin. Some of the arguments could have be put together while others are not strong enough to stand on their own. In the reading by Russell Hunt, he provides arguments how Internet plagiarism is an opportunity for educators to reexamine current teaching methods and to develop a new model that is more "active, cooperative, context-bound, and problem-and-project-based". He challenges the current method and explains why they are not working and actually turn students to plagiarism. What I liked best about one of his arguments was that he wanted the educators to emphasize to students the strength of their own work. What I would have liked to see in both of these articles is the discussion of how the growth of Internet had also played a huge rise in Internet plagiarism over the years.

I can kind of compare Internet Plagiarism to rape. We can blame the students or the educators, and we could blame the woman or the rapist. People can debate that it was the woman's fault for what she was wearing or how she was acting, while others can debate that she was just at the wrong place at the wrong time. It seems we live in a society where we teach women how to avoid rapist, but we don't teach men not to rape. So with that said, I think Russell Hunts argument is the strongest because I agree we should try to stop the issue instead of preventing it.

Media Experiences

Most of my media experiences come from being on the Internet. I spend most of my time on the Internet on social websites like Facebook. On Facebook, I am surrounded by all my family and friends. This reinforces my existing worldview and values because many of my Facebook friends and I can bond together to discuss an issue or an idea. An example would be if I were to bring up an incident that occurred in town, and go on about how is what horrible, many of my friends would "like" the post or comment and agree. However, Facebook can also challenge or expand my views. Being in college and lacking access to a TV and newspaper, it had been hard for me to keep up with current news going on. When the pepper spray incident at UC Davis occurred, my Facebook was flooding with status updates from friends about the subject matter. There were videos and links left and right showing or discussing footage of what had happened. On many of the statuses, there were debates between people discussing who was at fault and whether the situation was blow out of proportion or not. In this case, Facebook opened me up to a lot of information I would have not otherwise received. Also, the debates and multiple sides of the story allowed me to get a whole perspective of the pepper spray situation, and help me to form my own conclusion.

Regulating Children's Food Advertisments

While reading Wootan's and Liodice's arguments regarding the government regulation of children's food advertising, I notice that both of these authors provide a well written argument. I agree with Wootan's point how advertising unhealthy food to children can be misleading and unfair to them. Wootan's argument was valid because he used statistic and the negative effects of these advertisements. Liodice's argument was valid an effect as well. Liodice addressed the first amendment, freedom of speech, and explained how regulating these advertisements would violate the first amendment. He explained how CSPI is like the "nation's food nanny", and how it undermines parents authority for their child’s diets. Near the end, Liodice brought up that this issue goes further than just regulating advertisement by explaining that the food itself needs to be healthier and communities should ban together to bring heath into the country. I think if these two authors combined their arguments, if would make both of theirs stronger because it would challenge each other’s points, forcing a more accept solution.

Marketing Strategies

During the past week, I have encountered many different marketing strategies. First, I noticed many advertisements on my Facebook page that were placed there based on my likes and what my friends like. I found this marketing strategy somewhat successful only because I was able to see what my friends like, so I know the company is legitimate. Another marketing strategy I noticed was product placement in a music video I watched. The product was a Ferrari which the characters were driving fast. I don't think this strategy work very well because I made the product seem much more out of reach, giving me the impression that I had to be a celebrity to own the vehicle. I usually find product placement marketing strategies most effect because I do not feel like I'm being advertised to when the companies do it correctly. I almost always notice the product and I feel closer to the characters when I do because I too use that product. The least effective marketing strategy is when they use the fallacy of appeal to inappropriate authority, such as using celebrities to promote the product. It undermines the actual product because many consumers know that the celebrity is just promoting the product for the money, and not because it actually works.

Hearsay and Anecdotal Evidence

Hearsay, by definition, is evidence that is heard by one person and then repeated to another. It is most commonly known as gossip or rumors. Hearsay is notoriously unreliable, where words are twisted and comments are taken out of context. This kind of evidence is all too common for me and many people my age. Over a short 24 hours, my friends were giving my roommate and me cold shoulders. We soon realized we were the subject being talked about by another friend. My friend and my roommate and I were having a small tiff, which soon became known to the people around us. Those friends giving the cold shoulder were being given biased information and forming opinions only knowing one side of the story. Thankfully, we were able to sort everything out.

Anecdotal, similar to hearsay, is evidence based on personal testimonies. This is also unreliable because of inaccurate memory and the tendency exaggeration. Anecdotal is popular when telling a story to another friend is an attempt to brag about your experience. Both of these types of evidence should be avoided at all costs, even in everyday conversation. People can be misled and those on the other end, like me, can be hurt.

UFO No...maybe.

While reading "Perspectives on Evaluating Evidence for the Existence of Unidentified Flying Objects", three scientists gave their opinion on the research being done on UFO sightings. Edward Condon explains how UFO research is not beneficial for major scientific discoveries and should therefore not be looked into. He concludes that the research should be dismissed based on misrepresentation of UFO sightings to the public and the reoccurring rejection of the sightings by scientist. However, Astronomer J. Allen Hynek defends the UFO sightings saying the research should be given a chance, statistically or specifically. He concludes that if "definite patterns and other correlations" can be established for UFOs reported throughout the world, the probability that they represent something real in science would be certain. Royston Paynter sits in the middle of the two, explaining how the UFO community would need to take on proper scientific standards of investigation and proof in their work in order for conclusions to be made. He defends his conclusion stressing how many people need physical evidence in order to believe something or to be convinced.
I see Royston Paynter's argument as the most convincing argument because he explained how he could neither accept nor deny the UFO sightings, and stressed how important high standards would need to be placed on this kind of research, this including "probative evidence" and "rigorous reasoning" in order to form a plausible conclusion. I personally would like to see more effort and research put into UFO sightings because it is a very popular topic, and whether it is found real or not, people want answers.

Knowledge and Wisdom

Knowledge and wisdom may come across as the same thing. In reality, they are quite different. By definition, knowledge is information which we believe to be true and for which we have justification or evidence. Knowledge can be gained uniformly between students, can be pulled from a book, and is easily accessible with today's technology. Wisdom, on the other hand, cannot be found in books or on the web. It must be gained through experience and life events. An example of wisdom is knowing how to live on a college budget, which can only truly be learned through going to college. At college, I am acquiring both knowledge and wisdom. The education aspect is giving me knowledge, through textbooks, researching, and lectures, while the college experience (such as living in the dorms, having low finances, becoming independent) is giving me wisdom on life situations. The information age has made us much more knowledgeable because all of our questions and curiosity can easily be answered with a few clicks on a computer or phone. Many people are forgetting that the best way to find answers is to answer them yourself, instead of have the web answer for you.