Monday, January 25, 2010
Today and Tomorrow
As I´m with Techo para mi pais I need you to be responsible for posting both days your progress in your papers. I will respond as soon as I can. Failure to do so will result in point deduction in your life skills grade.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Sources
Today we'll be evaluating sources in terms of validity and relevancy.
Read the following document:
http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/553/03/
and
http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/553/02/
Use this checklist for three sources today (one from EBSCO) that you will not alongside any other bibliographic citations.
Post your answers on your blog.
Read the following document:
http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/553/03/
and
http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/553/02/
Use this checklist for three sources today (one from EBSCO) that you will not alongside any other bibliographic citations.
Post your answers on your blog.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
This Week
This Friday your bibliography is due in MLA format. You must have at least two primary sources and four secondary sources, alongside any tertiary sources you may have consulted.
Your first draft of 10-12 double-spaced pages in 12 point Times New Roman is due next Wednesday.
Your first draft of 10-12 double-spaced pages in 12 point Times New Roman is due next Wednesday.
Monday, December 14, 2009
This Week
This week, in addition to the Candide blogs from last week, write one blog in response to the ending of Candide. What does it suggest?
Remember your satirical op-ed articles are due Wednesday.
Remember your satirical op-ed articles are due Wednesday.
Friday, December 11, 2009
Beginning the Research Paper
Today, we'll discuss the research paper due the third week of January.
Read the following links:
http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/658/01/
Write a blog entry in which you respond to the information read, and then comment on somoene else's from the class.
Secondly, let's begin your research paper by informally researching. Using only the name of the book you will read choose three things to investigate. Be sure to discuss the validity of your sources and anything that you find appealing about your subject (perhaps an area to focus on).
Read the following links:
http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/658/01/
Write a blog entry in which you respond to the information read, and then comment on somoene else's from the class.
Secondly, let's begin your research paper by informally researching. Using only the name of the book you will read choose three things to investigate. Be sure to discuss the validity of your sources and anything that you find appealing about your subject (perhaps an area to focus on).
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Wikipedia
Finish the article:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21131
Here’s Wikepedia on Wikepedia.com:
Critics of Wikipedia often charge that allowing anyone to edit makes Wikipedia an unreliable work, and that some editors may employ clever use of semantics to make possibly biased statements sound more credible.[2] Wikipedia contains no formal peer review process for fact-checking, and the editors themselves may not be well-versed in the topics they write about, leading to criticism that its contents lack authority,[43] and that "[i]t will never be an encyclopedia, but it will contain extensive knowledge that is quite valuable for different purposes."[44]
Although Wikipedia has a policy of citing reputable sources, this is only sometimes adhered to. Encyclopædia Britannica's executive editor, Ted Pappas, was quoted in The Guardian as saying: "The premise of Wikipedia is that continuous improvement will lead to perfection. That premise is completely unproven."[43] and former Britannica editor Robert McHenry criticized the wiki approach on the grounds that "What [a user] certainly does not know is who has used the facilities before him." [45]
Academic circles have not been exclusively dismissive of Wikipedia as a reference. Wikipedia articles have been referenced in "enhanced perspectives" provided on-line in Science. The first of these perspectives to provide a hyperlink to Wikipedia was "A White Collar Protein Senses Blue Light",[46] and dozens of enhanced perspectives have provided such links since then. However, these links are offered as background sources for the reader, not as sources used by the writer, and the "enhanced perspectives" are not intended to serve as reference material themselves.
Former Nupedia editor-in-chief Larry Sanger criticized Wikipedia in late 2004 for having, according to Sanger, an "anti-elitist" philosophy of active contempt for expertise.[47] It is possible that articles subject to strong opinions (such as George W. Bush) are more prone to be edited poorly, but this is uncertain - often such articles receive extra attention and strong consensus exactly because they are the subject of heated debate. Other articles that do not produce such emotive responses may tend to be more stable.
Other commentators have drawn a middle ground, that it contains much valuable knowledge and has some reliability, even if the degree is not yet assessed with certainty. People taking such a view include Danah Boyd ("[i]t will never be an encyclopedia, but it will contain extensive knowledge that is quite valuable for different purposes"[48]), Larry Sanger (re-applying Eric Raymond's "Given enough eyeballs, all errors are shallow"[49]) and technology figure Joi Ito, who wrote, "the question is whether something is more likely to be true coming from a source whose resume sounds authoritative or a source that has been viewed by hundreds of thousands of people (with the ability to comment) and has survived."[50]
Bill Thompson, a well known technology writer, commented that the debate is probably symptomatic of much learning about information which is happening in society today, arguing that:
It is the same with search engine results. Just because something comes up in the top 10 on MSN Search or Google does not automatically give it credibility or vouch for its accuracy or importance... One benefit that might come from the wider publicity that Wikipedia is currently receiving is a better sense of how to evaluate information sources... The days when everything you saw on a screen had been carefully filtered, vetted, edited and checked are long gone. Product placement, advertorials and sponsorship are all becoming more common. An educated audience is the only realistic way to ensure that we are not duped, tricked, fleeced or offended by the media we consume, and learning that online information sources may not be as accurate as they pretend to be is an important part of that education. I use the Wikipedia a lot. It is a good starting point for serious research, but I would never accept something that I read there without checking.”
First read and evaluate three Wikipedia sources for veracity. Explain how you came to your conclusions and how you might revise the entry.
Research your reading for break using Wikipedia. Post your findings, etc. What do you expect from your book? How might you use it in a research paper?
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21131
Here’s Wikepedia on Wikepedia.com:
Critics of Wikipedia often charge that allowing anyone to edit makes Wikipedia an unreliable work, and that some editors may employ clever use of semantics to make possibly biased statements sound more credible.[2] Wikipedia contains no formal peer review process for fact-checking, and the editors themselves may not be well-versed in the topics they write about, leading to criticism that its contents lack authority,[43] and that "[i]t will never be an encyclopedia, but it will contain extensive knowledge that is quite valuable for different purposes."[44]
Although Wikipedia has a policy of citing reputable sources, this is only sometimes adhered to. Encyclopædia Britannica's executive editor, Ted Pappas, was quoted in The Guardian as saying: "The premise of Wikipedia is that continuous improvement will lead to perfection. That premise is completely unproven."[43] and former Britannica editor Robert McHenry criticized the wiki approach on the grounds that "What [a user] certainly does not know is who has used the facilities before him." [45]
Academic circles have not been exclusively dismissive of Wikipedia as a reference. Wikipedia articles have been referenced in "enhanced perspectives" provided on-line in Science. The first of these perspectives to provide a hyperlink to Wikipedia was "A White Collar Protein Senses Blue Light",[46] and dozens of enhanced perspectives have provided such links since then. However, these links are offered as background sources for the reader, not as sources used by the writer, and the "enhanced perspectives" are not intended to serve as reference material themselves.
Former Nupedia editor-in-chief Larry Sanger criticized Wikipedia in late 2004 for having, according to Sanger, an "anti-elitist" philosophy of active contempt for expertise.[47] It is possible that articles subject to strong opinions (such as George W. Bush) are more prone to be edited poorly, but this is uncertain - often such articles receive extra attention and strong consensus exactly because they are the subject of heated debate. Other articles that do not produce such emotive responses may tend to be more stable.
Other commentators have drawn a middle ground, that it contains much valuable knowledge and has some reliability, even if the degree is not yet assessed with certainty. People taking such a view include Danah Boyd ("[i]t will never be an encyclopedia, but it will contain extensive knowledge that is quite valuable for different purposes"[48]), Larry Sanger (re-applying Eric Raymond's "Given enough eyeballs, all errors are shallow"[49]) and technology figure Joi Ito, who wrote, "the question is whether something is more likely to be true coming from a source whose resume sounds authoritative or a source that has been viewed by hundreds of thousands of people (with the ability to comment) and has survived."[50]
Bill Thompson, a well known technology writer, commented that the debate is probably symptomatic of much learning about information which is happening in society today, arguing that:
It is the same with search engine results. Just because something comes up in the top 10 on MSN Search or Google does not automatically give it credibility or vouch for its accuracy or importance... One benefit that might come from the wider publicity that Wikipedia is currently receiving is a better sense of how to evaluate information sources... The days when everything you saw on a screen had been carefully filtered, vetted, edited and checked are long gone. Product placement, advertorials and sponsorship are all becoming more common. An educated audience is the only realistic way to ensure that we are not duped, tricked, fleeced or offended by the media we consume, and learning that online information sources may not be as accurate as they pretend to be is an important part of that education. I use the Wikipedia a lot. It is a good starting point for serious research, but I would never accept something that I read there without checking.”
First read and evaluate three Wikipedia sources for veracity. Explain how you came to your conclusions and how you might revise the entry.
Research your reading for break using Wikipedia. Post your findings, etc. What do you expect from your book? How might you use it in a research paper?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)