1.) In a real essay, you don’t take a position and defend it. You notice a door that’s ajar, and you open it and walk in to see what’s inside.
2.) Of all the places to go next, choose the most interesting.
3.) I found the best way to get information out of people was to ask what surprised them. How was the place different from what they expected.
4.) The main value of notebooks may be what writing things down leaves in your head.
5.) To be surprised is to be mistaken.
The video I chose to watch was Caterina Mota: Play with smart materials. The presenter decided to have examples to show the audience on hand. She physically showed the audience what she was talking about. I thought this was a good idea because it kept the audience engaged in the topic she was talking about. The topic was interesting all by itself but the examples reinforced the interest and possibly gave audience members a motivation to look up or find more information on this topic. She also had pictures of the things she was talking about which gave the audience an idea of the things she was talking about and possibly a way to make these things themselves. She wouldn’t always show pictures though, she was talking the whole time and didn’t when a picture was shown. Their strategies are different then the way our presentstion would go because I don’t think anyone in my group has physical examples to show the class. We do have videos though and maybe some pictures.
Evan Rosen points out that in his article that there should be a leader of the group and that he/she should kinda set the stage for all members of the group can interact with each other. He says that it is better to collaborate with your group or team rather than competing against them. He basically says that because when you are competing against fellow group members you aren’t really a group that is working together to reach a common goal and produce the best product possible. He proposes a different way of approaching a group that seems to be competitive towards each other. He mentions setting up a reward system for the group if they work together and not be competitive.
Shirky talks about flash mobs and how the organization of them can be like getting a group of people together for a good cause. Flash mobs take organization like our group. Our group has come together to research and interesting topic that can later on be analyzed further from the research and opinions we provide. Shirky also talks about Bloggers and Twitter accounts and how they have developed a new way of social media. We are going use Tumblr for our project and will research how some of these social networks have not only developed social media, but created opportunities for amateur artists.
Also, Shirky talks about the way that media handles the news, for instance, The Roman Catholic Church’s handle on the sex scandals. Shirky then tells us that they didn’t truly handle this well or listened to what the news was saying. This can be related to having all your research from every source before making any statements.
Both of these magazines give anyone out there, the chance to publish any of their work if they feel qualified. All entries are reviewed equally and appreciated when submitted. All of the contributing works create an opportunity for those that don’t have much experience with having their work displayed. It’s a great experience for all of the because it is all amateur work. Writing and publishing work is always hard in the Media Industry, and this opportunity makes for better collaborations and fresh ideas. These ideas are new and fresh to the new wave of media coverage. It is through these magazines that new opportunities are being created.
This chapter discusses the idea of “mass amateurization” which means that anyone can become say a journalist or a photographer without being an expert or a professional in that given field. This “mass amateurization” has recently become to overtake the existing idea of having to be a professional. “Mass amateurization” comes with both pros and cons. The benefits that come from this is that anyone can contribute to ideas or information to help improve or enhance the article being talked about, more and more people are able to publish their own work or help others with their work, and having these works available online makes it easier to access the many different articles or information for anyone to see or have access too. With benefits comes drawbacks as well. Some of these drawbacks include the fact that just about anyone can contribute their ideas to articles of other types of online sites that relay information for others and the information that is given may not be true because some people may not be that knowledgeable on the topic they decide to contribute too.
These articles about Zakaria, Lehrar, and Anderson match my idea of plagiarism in that the authors knowingly took information from another source and used it in their own writing without giving the author credit for his/her work. The authors passed this work off as their own, which was wrong. This cases are pretty much the same and should be treated the same. My idea for plagiarisms in universities is a little different. If a student plagiarizes on purpose than they should be punished but if it is an accidental plagiarism than they shouldn’t be punished. To tell the difference between the two, one would have to see how much of the paper is plagiarized and what exactly is plagiarized. If a student takes information from another source without giving credit where credit is due then that would be completely different as opposed to a if a student forgets to cite a quote they mentioned in their paper or cites it wrong. Everyone makes mistakes and citing everything correctly is challenging and very time consuming.