YouTube: Creations for Profit?

The article "The Copyright Balance and the Weight of DRM", Gillepsie argues "...that authors require financial incentives to motivate them to produce..." This helps explain one of the aims of Copyright Law: to ensure that the author gets the financial rewards that they have earned with their work, and that no one else does who may falsely claim the work as their own. This claim is very accurate with many forms of media and production, focusing mainly on the entertainment market such as books and music. However, with many forms of communication that are presented by the digital age and the uprising of the internet, this is no longer the case for many talented "authors."


In the instance of YouTube, there is a bustling, active community of channel users that upload their videos for others to few without any aim of recieving financial compensation. Granted, YouTube does pay many of their accounts that produce videos with millions of views, consistently. But running a YouTube channel is hardly a business, as for most it is just another form of expression that requires no financial incentive. There is one YouTube Guru, KevJumba, who uses these profits for charity. He runs one of the most successful YouTube channels on the Website, so he decided to make a second channel that will show similar videos, but rather than pocket the money that YouTube pays him, he donates the money earned each month to various charities that users vote upon. Every month he racks up over $1000 earned by his "cultural expression" and donates it to charity. It hardly seems as though he is making videos because of financial incentives.

COPYRIGHTS

When material is " copyrighted," it is protected by law from others expressing the intellectual work by performing, distributing, or copying the work. In "The Copyright Balance and Weight of DRM," Tarleton Gillespie expands on the complexity of copyright laws and creates a very political debate about where the line should be drawn that protects one's private intellectual property and the property that benefits and is for the good of the public. Her overall argument is concluded by saying that DRM, an encrypting and coding software, can help to decrease piracy of digital copyrighted materials.

This argument can be applied to other digital expressions as well. Take the videos on YouTube for example. There are numerous videos of copyright videos, documentaries, and motion pictures. By definition, the act of copy these materials is illegal. Posting them is not illegal with the assumption that the "copier" has permission to do so. Many videos are "spoofs" of comedy acts, dances, movies, songs, and other copyrighted intellectual expressions. If copyright laws can be interpreted to say that copying sheet music for the educational purposes is acceptable and legal, then can they also be interpreted to say that the reproductions of expressions of copyright materials on YouTube violate copyright laws? Also, since copyrighted video segments and full video copies exist on YouTube, should the poster of the video be responsible if the video is found to be copied without permission? Gillespie's argument once again resurfaces in a website that most find entertaining and legal but in actuality is potentially based off of the loose interpretations of copyright laws.

Editing Wikipedia

After being asked to edit Wikipedia, my initial thoughts were that I felt I was not really “worthy” of editing a page. Then I thought about it a bit more and found that Wikipedia is based on the idea of being an open source and therefore each post from different people would help develop the knowledge that is found in Wikipedia. Also if what I added was incorrect, avid Wikipedia users would soon correct it. The novelty that is Wikipedia is based on the fact that normal people edit the information that is present, and it allows one to feel that they have easily provided people with knowledge.

After this decision, I believe that I would edit a page about one of my favorite soccer players or about some music page. The reason I would choose to edit one of these pages is because these are the two fields that I believe I know most about. Basically those are the only two categories that I would feel comfortable providing knowledge from. I find that it is important that people do not post information that they are not sure of on Wikipedia as I myself do not like receiving false facts about ideas I am searching.

wiki: a world wide perspective

A couple years ago, at the inception of wikipedia, the fact that anyone could edit a wiki was very problematic. Individuals would write things that were completely false and tamper with certain articles. One person at my high school once edited the page for Sheryl Crow, changing her picture to that of Bob Dylan and completely changing her biography. Now wiki's are monitored by knowledgeable advisors so this vandalism is corrected very quickly. It is due to the current system of "checks and balances," if you will, that I don't mind the fact that anyone can edit a wiki. Information is now monitored to ensure its authenticity.

If I were to edit a wiki I would have to edit the page on the band the Red Hot Chili Peppers. While the current article covers a lot of the band history, based on documented accounts of the band, it lacks any mention of the band's work that was not published. The Red Hot Chili Peppers have made many great songs that were not released on their albums, these songs are called B-sides. The article makes no mention of these B-sides, despite their popularity. If I were to edit this page I would discuss these unreleased tracks.

Wikipedia: Scholarly?

When I was initially asked to edit Wikipedia, my first thoughts were, "Awesome, I could have some fun with this." I thought back to a time a few years ago when I jokingly added my name to the "alumni" section of my high school's Wikipedia page and then made myself a Wikipedia page. However, as I have grown up I have realized how valuable the credibility of Wikipedia actually is. I have used it many times to begin research by finding some background knowledge on a topic before I actually search for scholarly articles. I also use it weekly to quickly look up smaller topics/things that I might be curious to learn more about. Therefore, I highly value the credibility of the site. Furthermore, I respect the people who actualy put in the effort to edit pages and cite references. If I actually had to edit the "Digital Literacies" page, I don't think I would have the qualifications or the time to do the research that goes into most pages.

If I were to make a Wikipedia page, I would make one for Bittersweet ski area in Otsego, MI. Bittersweet is my home mountain, and I definitely think it is one of the best places in lower Michigan to snowboard or ski. I searched for Bittersweet on Wikipedia and could not find a page for it, which surprised my since there are pages out there for the most random things. I think if a page did exist, It could help their business out as people would have a resource other than the mountain's website to use as a reference.

Wiki whattt?

After reading a lengthy Wikipedia article and participating in the ensuing discussion this week, my English instructor proceeded to prompt my class members and me to register on the website and edit one of its pages. Though she later spilled that she was kidding, the idea of such a task provoked a few unpleasant emotions within me. The site is designed so that any registered user with further knowledge on a given subject can edit that page’s information to make the information more valuable for all Wikipedia users. I likely would be capable of performing such a task, but I do not feel that I have the proper authority to be editing information that the whole world could potentially access and use. The site does have many authorities who review edits and their justifications, but it worries me that information I might post could somehow be inaccurate or could mislead anyone who may choose to cite the data before the editors reviewed it. I personally would question the validity of a source edited by someone of my credentials, so I wouldn’t want others to unknowingly accept my input as fact either.

However, if I were to edit a Wikipedia page, I would edit the page about my hometown. The Caledonia, Michigan section of Wikipedia seems to accurately reflect the town, but it lacks much information and is slightly out of date. I would update statistics and add more facts about the town itself, aside from simply the school district and athletics which are the primary discussion right now. The demographics section of the page contains information about the village of Caledonia, which is only a tiny portion of the entire town. I would include further statistics to also represent the population reflected within the school district and the town as a whole. Information about what recreational activities are available in the town might also be useful for visitors to the page, and I could be the one to add such data. Despite my hesitations about editing Wikipedia, I could potentially provide useful information about Caledonia, Michigan if I were to register at the site and modify the wiki accordingly.

Wiki Editing

So when I was initially asked to edit Wikipedia, my initial thoughts were: Yes! I thought it would be cool to edit this information database to see how fast the wiki editors would respond. I have heard stories about their fast response and wanted to test it out myself. It is a testament to Wikipedia's users how quickly they respond, although not necessarily to the accuracy of the information itself. Personally, I think that Wikipedia is a great resource to get a firm idea of most any subject. Naturally, the user should do more research and look into other avenues for further information.

If I had to edit any one thing on Wikipedia, it would probably be the Non-denominational Christianity page. I do not disagree with any of the information but rather would add more information to the wiki. I think this type of Christianity is fast growing and deserves to have a more detailed and descriptive wiki. I was surprised to the see that the "history" tab did not reveal quite as many edits as I had expected. It seems the original author did a fair job of representing this religious (non) denomination.

Editing Wikipedia

When I was told to edit a Wikipedia page, I initially thought to myself, “ Wait!, What? Are you joking?” I am far from being worthy of editing a Wikipedia page. I’m not an expert on any topic. What could I possibly contribute to the page that is not already stated? I then thought that I might be able to find some grammatical errors that are most likely present in the webpages. These would be the changes to the pages that I would probably make if I had to make some modifications. I would never hunt grammatical errors in Wikipedia on my own time because practically everything else I’m doing right now is more meaningful than this.

If I had to edit a Wikipedia page, it would be on a topic that I know much about or that I had experience with. This led me to consider editing my high school’s page. More specifically, I would discuss my high school’s band program, which was a significant part of my life in high school. Currently there are only a couple sentences about the program, and I would like to elaborate further. For instance, I would list and give a brief description of all the trips the band went on during my four years in the program. I would love to add anecdotes of my personal experiences, but this is not appropriate for the page. I might attempt this to see how long my comments stay on the web page.

Wikipedia: Is it Legit?

If an instructor asked me to edit a Wikipedia page, I would probably look around to make sure he or she was actually talking to me. In no way am I qualified to post my so-called knowledge about a certain topic to the pages of an online encyclopedia. Then again, neither are most of the people who attempt to edit such pages. It has been said that "qualified" individuals constantly monitor the edits made to Wikipedia pages and make changes if needed. My problem, however, is that I am relatively illiterate when it comes to creating and editing web pages. Even if I thought I possessed legitimate information that should be added, I most likely wouldn't be able to figure out how to do so.

If, for some reason, I figured out how and chose to add/edit information on Wikipedia, it would probably get shot down right away because of a lack of experience or knowledge pertaining directly to the topic. However, I think it would be interesting to post an opinionated, controversial statement on a page that pertains to a political topic such as abortion or affirmative action. I would venture to guess that it would be deleted and/or counter argued within minutes. It would also be entertaining to write my name on a list of Nobel Peace Prize winners or gold medal Olympians, just to test how quick and thorough the editing and unediting process is.

Editing Wikipedia

When I was asked to edit Wikipedia, I got anxious for sure. I knew that Wikipedia is a web-based encylopedia that anyone can edit, but I have never thought about editing it myself. That is probably because I'm not an expert in any fields and thus I don't possess specific information or knowledge that can be added to the encyclopedia. I just felt that I'm not ready yet. Then I realized how it takes a huge confidence in oneself to contribute to editing Wikipedia. I thought about all the people who bravely participated in sharing their knowledges in Wikipedia and hoped that someday I would be as confident in myself as they are and actually edit a page of Wikipedia on my own.

If I had to edit Wikipedia now, I would probably choose a topic that I'm most familiar with. Since I am an econ major, I could, with a lot of researching and flipping through my textbook, contribute to editing a page about economics. I could write definitions of some economic terms, or explain some of the phenomena related to the field of economics. However, it is very likely that all of the economic terms or concepts that I know of are already included in the Wikipedia, so I doubt if I would ever have a chance to actually edit it.

Edit Wikipedia?!?!

If my teacher told me to edit the "Education" page on Wikipedia I'm pretty sure I would refuse to do it. It's not because I don't understand what education is, it's because I'm not knowledgeable enough to explain that term. But if my teacher told me to pick any wikipedia entry and edit it, I feel like there are a few topics I would be able to add my knowledge to. Editing a Wikipedia page is a powerful thing to do. It shouldn't be done if you don't have extreme knowledge of a topic. What you write is what someone else will read and believe to be truth.

If I had to edit a page I would edit two pages. I am a super fan of Dave Matthews Band and The Beatles. I know a lot about these bands, own close to 300 songs from each band, and have read many articles and books about them, including The Beatles Anthology. The only reason I would ever even think about touching this articles is because I have great knowledge of the bands. While I'm sure a lot of people think this a dumb thing to edit, to me music is a passion and these bands are my favorites. It would be an honor to contribute some of my knowledge to their pages on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia

When we were first asked to edit Wikipedia I did not know what to think. First, I considered the fact that I wasn't even entirely sure how to edit Wikipedia. However, I then reasoned that this could fairly easily be figured out. The next thought that came to my mind was what should I edit? I do not believe that I know how to better explain most of the words on Wikipedia. At this point, most of the explanations on Wikipedia have been written and edited by numerous people who have all checked the work of those who wrote before them. Furthermore, I was keenly aware of the fact that Wikipedia was found to be 20% more accurate on average than an encyclopedia. So how could I possibly contribute something valuable to this website on an already existing topic.

This lead me to the conclusion that I would edit a page for myself. I then remembered that back in High School we had created a Wikipedia page for one of my teachers. Within five minutes of us creating the page, it had been taken down by the Wikipedia administrators because they do not allow pages for unimportant individuals in society. I was curious to see how long my Wikipedia page would last before it was taken down. I thought it could be a sort of game to see who can get their Wikipedia page to stay up the longest. Though a page about me would provide no benefit to society, I was still interested in making one for purely personal reasons.

Editing Wikipedia

If my instructor asks me to edit a Wikipedia page, I would instantly be quite nervous and scared. I know that many people are aware that Wikipedia may contain many unreliable sources because anyone can easily edit information on Wikipedia. However I also know that Wikipedia can be actually quite a reliable source because information being edited is monitored. From my last semester Communications study GSI, I heard that most of the false information on Wikipedia is actually corrected within the next 24 hours on average. More importantly, large number of people online uses and trusts information on Wikipedia. Therefore, due to my lack of expert knowledge on any field, as an undergraduate student, I would definitely be worried about unintentionally providing incorrect information.

However, if I had to choose a page to edit, it would certainly be about something that I have reasonably in-depth knowledge about so that I will not be worried about posting inaccurate information. The information I provide would likely come from first-hand experiences, which I can be confident about its truthfulness. At the same time, I would have to be careful not to be too subjective or biased. Therefore, rather than attempting to edit pages that require professional, scientific knowledge or accurate statistics, I could possibly edit the page called “Playing the violin.” Even though this page gives quite lengthy information on how to play violin, from posture to specific techniques such as vibrato and harmonics, I know from my nine-year experience that much more delicacy is needed in order to play violin well and express emotions through playing. Therefore, I could add information such as “controlling finger and arm strengths” or give tips to practicing and mastering certain skills.

Wikipedia: Malleable or Not?

When the teacher asked the class to go to the Wikepedia page for education, and was asked to edit it, I thought she was serious. I figured that the teacher was demonstrating the point that once a Wikipedia page has been edited, it is very very likely that the page will revert to its pre-edited form after a short amount of time. I assumed that we were all to make goofy little edits at once, and then check back and none of them would be there. As I write this page I have made two edits to Wikipedia pages to test this out. On the "education" page, in the first sentence, I changed the word "broadest" to "largest", and believe it or not 5-10 minutes later this edit still exists. In my more immature years, I think I edited a page like "World War II" and made some dumb comment, finding that it was removed almost instantly after it was made. For the Wikipedia page "experience", I added the words "super awesome" before "general concept" in the first sentence. I am shocked to find that 5-10 minutes later, this edit still also exists. Perhaps Wikipedia is more editable than I had thought.

If I had to choose a page to edit, I feel as though I would edit the page for my high school. Like many typical students, I have looked at the page for my high school on Wikipedia and have found various statistics and random facts about alumni, but no personal touch has been added. I think it would be enjoyable to have a "building details" section that includes all sorts of nooks and cranny's that every student is familiar with, or perhaps commend some excellent teachers that I had studied under. Adding these sorts of things to the Wikipedia page would certainly make it more enjoyable to read for graduates as well as current students.

Wikipedia Editing Job

When asked to edit Wikipedia, new thoughts and questions arise in my mind. I feel compelled to say something important, something that adds new meaning and definition. However with this addition, is it acceptable to include opinionated statements since it is a "free-encyclopedia"? If not, how can I state in my own words or edit any topic without being bias? It seems impossible to write anything in "your own words" without having an agenda or a particular opinion or personal feeling being expressed.
Also, the particular page that I would edit is another decision that is difficult to make but I would choose the page based on my own knowledge. I am educated in many subjects as a college student, but particularly I would want to create a page about a significant place in my life or a topic. Perhaps I would chose to create a page about Paradise Bound Ministries, the organization that I traveled to Guatemala with.I could give the founder, church affiliation, and work accomplished by the organization. I could also create a page about South Haven High School on Wikipedia as a graduate. I could give a detailed account of a student's experience there and hope that other students would also edit the page to give it the most comprehensive and well represented account possible about the high school by including all of the school organizations, athletics, classes, and accomplishments.

Editing Wikipedia - ER

Having been asked to edit Wikipedia, I was immediately shocked. I began to consider various potential pages that I have some knowledge on. I began considering which page I should edit. My mind gave a mental check at that point, and I realized that I am nowhere near qualified to edit a page on Wikipedia. I realized that the quality of Wikipedia can never be guaranteed, as each page can be edited by at least a few people who are not experts in that field. This began a mental discussion of whether or not Wikipedia can be used as a reliable scholarly source, to which I concluded that no, it cannot. Wikipedia has become the crutch of unmotivated students, and should not be seen as a tool for collegiate writing. Just this afternoon, Wikipedia's server went down, rendering its tools useless internationally. On the Wikipedia technical blog page, one user, Jimmy, commented: "We remember Thursday, March 25, 2010 as the day every English speaking student failed their research papers." Humorous, but a grain of truth runs through this comment.

I had difficulty deciding what page to edit. I considered creating a page for my tiny high school, which currently does not have a page. I also considered reviewing, editing, and adding information to pages lacking in length by conducting my own research. Another option was adding to the page about carillon, taking knowledge from my two semesters of studying the little-known instrument. I finally decided that I would create and edit a page about me. Not out of vanity, but because I am confident that I only have the authority to comment on myself. I do not know enough about any particular subject to edit articles that will be read and used as references for many students and adults around the world.

Editing Wikipedia

After being told to edit the Wikipedia webpage for “education,” my initial reaction was one of perplexity and intimidation. I am merely a college freshman; my thoughts and opinions are not significant enough to be presented on Wikipedia, a website viewed by millions of users. My first belief was that professors, authors, and prominent leaders in the educational realm are the sole editors and contributors of the Wikipedia “education” page. However, now as I reflect upon being told to edit the Wikipedia webpage for “education” I realize that this task is not nearly as daunting as before. The article “Lessons of Wikipedia” by Jonathan Zittrain allowed me to realize and accept that the general public generates the information on Wikipedia. Important leaders or educators do not create pages; almost anyone can create a webpage. So while I remain merely a college freshman, my thoughts and opinions presented onto Wikipedia are just as credible as many Wikipedia contributors.

If I were to edit a page on Wikipedia it would regard any topic I am comfortable debating, defending, or analyzing. Soccer, basketball, Irish-step dancing, or any general topic I believe myself to know sufficient information about. The topic would pertain a large role in my life and I would consider myself to be a credible source. I understand that information on Wikipedia is generated by anyone, including the general public; however, it is difficult for me to classify all of the information as insignificant. There are many articles written by extremely credible scholars and many that have valid citations. Thus, if I were to edit a page it would definitely regard a topic in which I believe both others and myself would consider to be a reliable source.

With Great Wiki-ing Comes Great Responsibility...

Wikipedia is a unique online encyclopedia that is offered to everyone with internet access. This goes both ways, since any anonymous user is able to create a username in Wikipedia and edit any wiki page because it is freely accessible to the public. Thus, you might want to consider the impact that you could make by editing a wiki post on a famous subject. For example, being a student with hardly any credibility to assert concrete theories or statements, I can edit the Wikipedia page on Organic Chemistry. Clearly, I am no professor or doctorate in this field, but my interference could be detrimental to the general public. Someone could be looking at the page after I make the edit and have false belief in what is stated on Wikipedia. This is also another flaw that is often seen in the use of Wikipedia. Similarly perceived as an "encyclopedia" the general public blindly follows what is said without even considering the sources that the Wiki page is based upon. Even though one may be able to freely impact Wiki pages, there are still Wikipedia moderators who essentially moderate if an edit is legitimate or not.

If I was to edit any page on Wikipedia, I would want to lend my knowledge to a topic that I know to be true, or at least am an a prominent figure in its field of knowledge. Considering that, I would probably just try to edit a page about myself, because to be honest, who knows more about you.... than you? Saying this, I am against the editing of posts on Wikipedia that are not known to be true because there are so many who are dependent on the information provided by Wikipedia. And considering that much on Wikipedia is regarded to be legit in its majority, it becomes an online encyclopedia that ultimately can become an information powerhouse.

Editing Wikipedia

We have all heard numerous times from teachers that Wikipedia is not a credible source, because anyone who desires can edit the information on its pages. However, if I were asked by an instructor to edit a Wikipedia page, I'd feel a little nervous about it. I am by no means an expert in any field. I'm not full of specific, detailed knowledge about any specific subject matter. Unless I wanted to do a lot of research on a topic, I wouldn't feel by any means qualified to edit a Wikipedia page which others may then rely on for information. Perhaps my lack of desire to to edit any page lends some support for the argument made by Jonathan Zittrain in "The Lessons of Wikipedia": that Wikipedia is actually quite a reliable source. Why would people want to post false information in the first place?

However, if I were forced to edit something on Wikipedia, I think I may choose the page on Facebook. Facebook is a website I easily waste hours on everyday. Though I don't know much about its creation or operation as a business venture, I know a lot about how to use it and what it is typically used for. Facebook is a topic that isn't scientific; accurate information can be drawn simply from experience with the site, something of which I have plenty. This is much different from an article on something like black holes or the French and Indian War, topics that I am far withdrawn from and which can really only be described in terms of factual scientific data or historical record. If most people felt like this, and simply wanted to stick to what they know when editing Wikipedia pages, it seems that its credibility would be reduced to hardly being an issue at all.

Googable?

With a first name like Michael, I immediately noticed that when I searched for myself in Google, it was not easy at all finding information that actually pertained to me. The name Beyer is also a pretty common German last name, so that provided a large amount of results as well. When I searched my name, the 5th page on the list was my Facebook profile, of which I allow everyone access to see it. Other than that one page, I had zero success finding any other articles or websites that pertained to me. I was surprised to see that I could not find any articles or rosters for sports teams or clubs that I was involved in in high school. I did find a person named Sean Michael Beyer, which I thought was very amusing considering that my brother's name is Sean. When I performed a Google images search of my name I was not able to find any pictures that could be associated with me.

Everyone always talks about privacy being an issue on the internet, and this talk of Googling yourself surely is a topic of interest. When I Googled myself, I do not believe any information that could maybe harm me was available, considering I do not have that much personal information on my Facebook page. On the other hand, some people put their home phone numbers, addresses, and other sorts of personal information on their pages that could be used by internet predators of any sort. I think the risks of being search-engine-available really depend on who you are and who would potentially be out to get you, not just the the presence of your name on the search engine. Advantages of appearing in a search engine could be range from potential employers finding facts about you that please them, to friends being able to find your cell phone number on the internet when they had forgotten to put it in your phone. Basically, access to any information that would help other people satisfy their needs with good intention.

With great Googleability comes great responsibility

How googleable am I? Not very. For instance, if you were to type my name into google and hit feeling lucky, you would not be getting lucky with me. However, you would be getting lucky with 28 other David Crons (white pages). In fact, nothing about me was on the first page of the search results. It wasn't until the second page that I found a link to my twitter account and an old type of social networking site I had years ago. I don't use either of these sites, so I found it weird when my much used Facebook page didn't show up until a few search pages later. If I do more specific searches I can find some additional info such as scores from high school track meets and campus involvement. I am fine with this lack of googleability because it just means I am less easy to creep on. There is no need for me to be very googleable right now, for if somebody needs to go to google to research me, chances are they have no business doing so. However, in the future when I am a successful orthopedic surgeon, I would like for clients such as professional athletes, CEOs and U.S. presidents to be able to google me if the need some bones or joints fixed.

There are pros and cons of being googleable; it all just depends on who you are. Pros, like I mentioned with my future plans, would be if you want your business or service advertised and easy to find. Similarly, if you are an athlete, musician, or actor/actress, you might want to be fairly googleable to increase your fame and get your name out there. (That is of course unless you have an affair with dozens of cocktail waitresses... then you might wish for less googleability). However, for students and average joes that don't need their name out there for any beneficial reasons, you might not want to be wishing for google hits like you wish for Facebook profile views. There are creepers out there with affinities for google searches who end up on How to Catch a Predator. You also never know what kind of incriminating photos could be floating around out there.

Googability: A Blessing or Curse?

After I typed my name in the Google search, I discovered that I’m not very Googable. If one were to type my full name in quotes, it would be difficult to find me because of the other people that share my name or a similar name, such as Bryan Freeborn. If one were to type more specific information about me such as my hometown or high school, then only about a few dozen pages show up with only a handful of them relating to me. These webpages have very fairly little information about me. For instance, one search result is a pdf of my high school newsletter where my name is listed for a random award. However, my Facebook profile picture of me shows up in the Google image search; it is a little scary knowing that other people know what I look like. I would not want to be much more Googable. I like my privacy and do not want strangers to be able to get information about me. All my friends who might need information about me can get it via Facebook.
If someone is more Googable, then his or her positive attributes as well as negative information become more available to others. For example, if employers searched me on Google, they would find that I am a member of the Michigan Marching Band, which shows a lot of dedication and that I am fairly well- rounded. On the other hand, if someone had a previous, minor misdemeanor that was available on the internet, then one’s chances of obtaining a job might be restricted if his or her employers searched the internet for such information.

Googleable.

For most, when they enter their name into Google, they would receive common results about people who share the same name. Or even if one was luckily enough to have a unique name, they can find more information about themselves quite easily. As for myself, the search wasn't so easy. Typing in "Jason Do" into Google yields over a hundred million results, but perhaps only a few pertain to me. Why is this so? Perhaps its a combination of having a common name, and a last name that mimics a common English verb, "to do." All the initial searches come up with a common phrase such as "What would Jason do?" Used for titles of TV shows or a parody on the horror star, Jason Voorhees. In the end, you would find that trying to Google my name to find information about me is almost an impossible endeavor.

Looking at the positive aspects of being googlable, by searching one's name, everything that they have been involved with can be made public, such as, someone's achievements, or involvement in clubs or organizations. One can also be easily accessible to those that have lost touch. Long lost friends can be able to find each other at the simple search of a name, promoting the strengthening of someone's social network. Yet, at the same time, being easily accessible is a personal security risk, since by finding someone, all their information is out in the open. If one was able to find out a lot of personal information by googling a name, there are a lot of problems that could arise, such as financial fraud, kidnapping, etc.

He Googles Me, He Googles Me Not

Upon attempting to Google myself, I realized that I was not too readily available on the internet. My results displayed many other more established Michelle Walkers in the world, ranging from a jazz musician to a photographer. Upon refining my search by including my hometown, I was able to acquire articles and pictures from local newspapers and from my high school’s website. I am content with this present level of “googlability.” I do not think I have done anything quite worthy of a first page search results posting yet in my life. I appreciate that my every action on Facebook or any pictures that I may appear in are not right out in the open. You would essentially have to be searching for data on specifically my life to find such results. However, in the future I would not be opposed to having any grand achievements displayed for others to see on Google.

Potential advantages or limitations from being searchable on Google rely heavily on whether or not the accessible information is positive or negative regarding your life. If there are primarily articles about you winning awards or doing charity work, then being searchable would be beneficial because it would promote your image. However, if the search results turn up scandalous photos of you or a criminal record, for example, then being searchable could be detrimental in a career search or for finding other great opportunities. There are risks involved in being on Google as well. Information that you may have thought was private on the internet can be displayed for all eyes to see. Thus, we must always be careful what we post on the internet in case others might decide to search our names in the future.

Google

Typing my name into Google, I figured out that I am not Googleable. According to google, there is no information about me whatsoever. “Byeongjik” is very uncommon name even in Korea. There was NO information about me. Because I went by my nickname “B.J”when I played sports during high school, there were some information. I realized that it is very hard to find specific information I wanted to find out. Overall, I am not very good with finding information.

I think there are always both positive and negative effects in everything as well as googling. Some of the positive things are that when you are googling, you are able to find things that you are looking for most of time. For example, I was planning to buy a headphone so I typed headphone. There were a bunch of lists that showed me in different category. The most expensive to least, most popular to least, and more. It allows people to have a quick overview of things. Not only that, shoes, even famous brand companies, you can search and find things easily. While there are positive outcomes, there are negative effects such as negative feedbacks. This could lead a serious problem when it gets out of control. Overall, I think it is better to keep the privacy to myself.

How Googleable is too Googleable?

Personally, I'm not all that googleable. The first few things that popped up in a Google search of my name were actually related to me; there were my Facebook, Twitter, and Blogger accounts. Also, there were a few local news articles from high school and a reference to me in a church newsletter. Other than these few things though, most of the search results that came up were for a Kate Hoisington or someone with the last name Hoisington in general. I think I'm satisfied with how googleable I am. I wouldn't want to be too googleable to the point that I felt my privacy was invaded, but I like that there are a few things about me out there. If anyone really wanted a lot of information about me, he or she would have to request to be my "friend" or "follower" on one of my social networking sites, since I have them all set to private.

I think it's scary in a way that people can so easily access information about us, but at the same time it's sort of exciting. Especially if your Facebook or other accounts are viewable to the public, people can essentially get to know who you are all while sitting at their computer. I feel like this would typically be a bad thing, simply because most people like to live their lives privately. Also, if anything negative were to be posted about you, other people could easily access it, and this could clearly have a negative impact on your reputation. On the other hand, positive things could be posted about you. For example, one of my search results was about a community service project I played a role in. If a potential employer, for example, viewed this, it would likely be beneficial for me. I think overall the value of a Google search for each individual boils down to what kinds of information about them are posted for others to access.

Googleable

Upon typing my name into Google a wide assortment of results are returned. The results Google returns are rather disturbing to me. The first website that shows up is for a blog discussing a Chris Lesch who has made repeated calls to them. Apparently, this person has been running a scam. The next index is of a website that claims they can find me. By simply following this link, anyone with a basic knowledge of how to use a computer would be able to find out where I live, who I am related to, where I went to high school, what sports I played in high school, and my Facebook profile picture. Fortunately, most of the links that appear on Google are for a different Chris Lesch. My name appears in 779,000 different Google indexes, but most of these are not me. Thus, I would say my name is not very Googleable, and I am glad of it.

The ease with which someone could gather all of this information about me is disturbing to me. Even though the top website wasn't me, it gives my name a bad reputation. Furthermore, people who do not actually know me in person may believe that one of these other people who share my name is actually me. In a generation where employers look to the internet for information about potential employees, I am certainly apposed to Googleability. I hope to keep my name off of the Google search. The best way for me to avoid the dangers of internet privacy is to avoid posting information about myself. I hope that I remain ungoogleable.

My Googlability

To my relief, I found that I'm not very googlable when I searched my name in Google. The only result that actually related to myself was the twitter account I've made for this class. "MinJung" is a common name in Korea, and I noticed that there were a lot of other MinJungs in the search results. If anyone wants to get information about someone named "MinJung," googling is definitely not a good idea.

There could be some advantages of appearing in Google search engines, but I feel that there are too many risks involved. It could seriously threaten people's privacy if too much information is exposed to the public through the Internet. Personally, even though there was only one search result that related to myself, I felf highly uncomfortable about it. In addition, there are some limitations associated with googling. It would be difficult to get accurate information of a person with a common name by using google search engines.

Googleability

After googling my name, I discover that according to Google I am the only Sheila Waslawski in this world. Fortunately or unfortunately, I have no Google doppelganger. However, this means that almost all of the Google results pertained to activities I specifically partook in. The results included newspaper articles pertaining to sports and academics throughout high school, math challenges, and athletic statistics and awards. Due to my privacy settings on Facebook, the only social network that appeared was Twitter. After searching under Google images, the only photographs that pertained to me were those of math equations that I solved in high school (lame) and a soccer ball that linked to a website in which my name was included. Overall I was moderately googleable.

In my opinion being googleable has both constructive and negative effects. Being googleable allows companies to have a quick overview of the awards and honors one may have received; but this also means that the same possible job prospects may view information that one may not have believed to be public. Social-networks are where this primarily comes into play. Companies are known to view Facebook pages of employee prospects and not only judge their information, but their friends’ information as well. Not only is one accountable for his or her information on the Internet, but also the friends he or she is depicted to be associated with. One now has to treat any piece of information he or she places on the Internet as being under the public eye.

Google Search: Sharif Anous

When I searched my name in Google, I came across various results. The ones that were actually related to me had to do with athletics and organizations that I had been involved in during either High school or here at the University of Michigan. The other results that were found were of sites that had some parts of my name in the URL or description of the site. When I did a Google image search I came across no images of me, but many of the famous actor Omar Sharif. I am satisfied with the amount of information that I can find about myself on Google, but I would prefer to be able to find at least one image of myself through the Google i9mage search.

The advantages of appearing in Google search are that you can find quick information about yourself. It allows organizations to get a somewhat quick overview of who you are. This would be based on the organizations you are involved in, the honors you received, or even how involved you are on the Internet. Despite this there are several limitations to appearing in a Google search. The main one is that you do not control what information is out there on Google. Therefore there might be compromising information about you that is open to the public. This can cause serious problems for your future development and especially if you want to have a respectable career.

My googabality

I found to be that I was much more "googable" than I would like to be. When I googled myself I not only found links for my Twitter account, and Facebook account, but also a link for a Facebook group that had my name in it. Additionally, I found links pertaining to my high school activties. Such being, high school golf and the magazine of which I was an editor for. It is also interesting to share a name with an actor. Ben Kurland, the actor, had a wikipedia page along with other links pertaining to him. Most frightening to see was a link for "Ben Kurland nude pics." I didn't actually click the link so I can't confirm that it was neither me nor him, although I sure as hell hope it wasn't me.

Obviously, advantages are that one can more easily find information about the person they are searching. However, this could also be a disadvantage and could be a potential new way of "creeping" or being a "creeper." We've all seen how weird the internet can be, so it is quite scary to see oneself appear on a screen that is visible to the entire world.

Googability

Googling my name is an activity not unfamiliar to me. I have, over the years, searched out every like-named person in the world. I can tell you the professional career stats of French singer Eric Raynal, the location of the dentistry practice of C. Eric Raynal (DDS), or the numerous writings of Eric Raynal submitted to the annual Crooked Tree Arts Council writing contest (that one is me). The limited number of Eric's in the world (three only!) give me a better sense of identity, as well as belonging. I feel a special connection with the other two in the world, even though the dentist only half counts. I mean, cmon. He doesn't even use his first name.

I feel a bit overwhelmed when Google can tell the searcher my friends on Facebook, or where I'm located, but then again, the Internet was designed to bring people together. It's a gift and a curse. The trend in the increasing amount of information available online can be compared to two extremely interesting historical cases: the story of Prometheus, providing fire to the humans as a blessing, but bringing a curse upon himself and all mankind, and also with the myth surrounding the Hand of Mysteries. Many interesting debates are raised regarding the power of online searches, from practical applications to esoteric societies.

Do not search me

When I google "Halley Rycenga," I find an assortment of information about myself. From social networking sites to newspaper articles, bits and pieces of information about myself (Halley) come together, linked by my name in text. One can learn about other people I am associated with, personal contact information, past jobs, my scholastic history, and more. However, being "googlable" or easily found with many sources/hits is not something I would like to be. For some, the idea of being present and connected to the web may give a sense of famousity but for myself it seems like a recipe for danger.

While there are some advantages to being googlable, there are many risks to being accessible through google that seem to outweigh the benefits. Perhaps I wanted to get a job and before I received an interview, the company decided to "google" me to find a little more about me. While at the present I have nothing rueful or incriminating in my past, the interviewer could associate me with people who have just by looking at social networking sites. Any bit of information on the internet could easily be misconstrued to look "bad" and give a bad impression of someone. Another risk to being googlable is making your personal contact information more accessible to the public. I do not want just anyone to know where I live, my full name, my birthdate, etc. If these small pieces of information got into the wrong hands, it could be much easier to locate me and do me harm or to steal my identity. I prefer to keep my business private to myself and others who I trust.

Googlability

When I googled myself, I found that I am not very “googlable”. The only information about myself that came up were this Blogger page and another page on Facebook. Many other results were related to people who have same or similar names. The reasons for not being very googlable could be because I have a Korean name with relatively uncommon spelling and many of the sites I use or have accounts for are Korean-based websites that are not easily googlable. I actually felt comfortable to be able to find only so much about myself on google. I have no problem with pages such as Blogger, Twitter and Facebook, related to myself, appearing on google search engine because any of the posts there were the ones I actually wanted to share with other people, so I knew that they could easily go public. However, I would not want to be any more googlable because it can possibly threat my privacy.

Of course, there are advantages of being googlable if someone wants to promote his or herself or draw people’s attention to anything they want to share with the public. Being googlable will definitely attract others. However, we are all well aware of the fact that once online, it will stay online forever. It would be a serious threat to private life if any information that one does not want to share with others anymore can be searched online. Even worse, it is not fair for employers or college administrators to be able to access prospective employees or students information without any permission. Therefore, appearing on google search engine risks one’s privacy and future.

Google: The Ultimate Gateway for Creepers

As self-centered as it may seem, I have Googled myself many times. I usually use quotes around my name because it produces the most accurate hits. After Googling myself in class today, I noticed some differences compared to what I have found in the past. Searching "Emily Nairn" produces results such as my Twitter and Blogger sites. I can also be found in my great-grandmother's obituary from ten or so years ago, along with a list of perfect MEAP scores in a fifth grade newsletter. I find it very strange that such dated publications are still showing up as search results. Although the Web search didn't yield much information about me, I would still like to be less Googleable because of the Images results. The very first image is an extremely old, deleted Facebook profile picture of mine. This angered me because I made a conscious effort to make my Facebook content unavailable to public searches.

I have trouble justifying the advantages of being Googleable if one is just an average joe. No one cares about my MEAP scores or my Twitter, so why bother allowing public access to that information? On the other hand, I have enjoyed the Googleability of various professionals, namely doctors. I carefully chose my PCP partially based on her credentials listed on medical evaluation websites. Being Googleable also poses potential risks. Given that I am currently in the process of searching for a job, I am uncomfortable knowing that employers can access information about me. It can also produce personal risks. Since I am a creep, I found and then proceeded to add an Emily Nairn from Australia whose Facebook showed up on Google. This wasn't a problem for her, but the fact that I was able to find her so easily could produce all sorts of issues, depending on the intentions of the Googler.

Googlability

Everyone Googles themselves at some point to see what's out there on the web with your name attached to it. When I Googled my name I found many hits with Michael Balke in it. For example there's a German composer named Michael Balke who has his own website and youtube videos of him conducting world famous symphonies. When it came to material that regarded myself the only thing that popped up was my twitter account. It was a relief to me because I really don't want to have my name out there on the web as a college student. I like my privacy and the fact that when people search my name all they will see is a twitter page made me rest easy.

There are many risks and advantages to being Googlable. It all just depends on how private you want your life to be. Some people like having there name out there because it can draw attention to them, especially if it's for something good. It can help employers understand who you are if there is good information out there on you. But on the other hand if there is a lot of negative things out there then it can be a real draw back. It can destroy your privacy and even the chance of getting a job if the wrong people see it. Your internet life is something that should be taken seriously. Nothing is ever truly "deleted." The risk of having something in a google search will always be there.

I am Googleable

My personal view pertaining to Google posting information about me online is vastly different than the the perceived general consensus: I personally have no problem with it. I believe that every internet user should be careful enough not to enter any information into a public space that they wish not be seen by other people. Facebook is a prime example of this; what you post on facebook can be seen by a unbelievable amount of people. I have edited my facebook privacy settings so that the only way a stranger can see any of my information (minus my name, location, and picture), is by first be-friending me. As for my name appearing in a google search, the only time this occurs is through my "linked-in" account and for a tennis tournament I won. Google showing these things does not concern me. If Google where to show any other private information (other than my name itself), this would concern me but because Google allows you to control this feature I have nothing to worry about.... at least for now.

The advantages of having your name and certain "safe" information shown to the world is simply exposure. People who are searching for you can easily find you. Whether these people are good or bad plays into whether displaying your name in the first place was a risk or not. I don't think too many "bad" people are looking for me and am therefore not very concerned. Having your contact information on Google could help employers see your professional side and could even lead to them contacting you.

Assumptions on social networking

In the article, Do problems associated with social networking outweigh the benefits?, both Norah Wei Tang and Elizabeth Anne Wood discuss what they believe to be the effects of social networking on their users. Tang agrees with the idea that social networking is affecting people, especially college students, adversely. She goes on to discuss how it can harm your career using the Michael Phelps scandal as an example. Wood disagrees with the statement, and believes that social networking sites create a perfect outlet for the pursuit of knowledge that wasn’t accessible before the creation of the Internet and these sites.

Despite these two polar opinions on the subject, the two responses do share a common assumption. This assumption is that social networking users, especially college students, spend enormous amounts of their time using social networking sites whether it be twitter, MySpace or Facebook. Although the same assumption is made, Tang says that the time spent on the sites is wasted as it only serves as a distraction. On the other hand Wood emphasizes that the social networking sites can be used in order to follow important people or interesting ideas, and that social networking sites allow for these many things to become easily accessible.

Social Networking Websites

Norah Wei Tang and Elizabeth Anne Wood have different views on the topic of the use of social networking sites in a environment. Although they both agree with the fact that the all these communication websites help people to much convenient, they slightly have different opinions specifically on communication. Norah Tang asserts that communication through social networking websites are unhealthy, meaning it gives bad outcomes to students. For example, college students may not focus and get distracted by these systems. Not only that, it hurts academic performance. Yet, Elizabeth Wood states that communication system is very beneficial to students in college. She says that it helps people to interact with one another and bond together.

In spite of these differences, two authors also have a common analysis over communication. One thing that both agree on about social networking system is playing crucial role in the society. Norah Tang says that students always can use them as long as they have the internet. Additionally, Elizabeth wood says that systems are very popular among people and they can learn so much about them not only through internet but other student users that use same program as well. Overall, they both emphasize that how social networking websites are. Students are further stimulated by this system. Social networking sites and students are developing quickly together and will work hand-in-hand with one another along the way.

Assumptions. . .

A few commonalities that are quite apparent by both of the authors of their respective articles are the assumptions they both make. First, both Ms Wood and Ms Wei Tang both assume that college a large number of students use social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter. Both of the author also have an underlying belief in the importance of education and both of their articles are written, in part, with that importance in mind.

The third and most important assumption that the authors make is that they agree about the enormous amount of time students spend on these social networking sites. This ties in with the very reason they are writing their articles, to either justify or condemn this expenditure of time. While Ms Wood believes that sites such as Facebook can enhance the free exchange of ideas, Ms. Wei Tang articulates her belief that they are a waste of time.

Tang vs. Wood

Although Nora Wei Tang is opposed to the over usage of social networking in our society, while Elizabeth Ann Wood is an advocate, both authors agree that social networking serves as a means of communication between individuals. In her argument, Tang mentions "immediate interaction" offered by the sites, as well as the concepts of instant gratification and being constantly plugged in. Without viewing Tang's negative views that go along with such aspects of social networking, one might think that she viewed it as beneficial.

Wood clearly has a positive tone throughout her piece. She mentions how social networking facilitates intellectual engagement (much like how our class utilizes this blog!) and allows interactive discussion of ideas. These important components of communication are useful as long as a person knows how to effectively operate the social networking sites. I particularly enjoyed the emphasis on this aspect of social networking because Wood was able to counter argue Tang's criticisms by simply stating that it can be wonderful when used correctly.

Social Networking: Good or Bad?

Wei Tang and Wood share two contrasting opinions about social networking. Although Wei Tang believes that social networking is a distraction and Wood believes that it promotes learning, they both agree that social networking sites allow people to connect with others that they normally wouldn't connect with. Wei Tang sees this as a distraction, but I disagree. Social networking sites have the ability to connect us with larger, more diverse groups of people. This helps us to grow socially into more well-rounded people and exposes us to more diverse intellectual opinions.

Another similarity in the two opposing arguments is the fact that they only discuss college students as the users of social networking sites. For Wood, this is understandable since she discusses the benefits social networking has in higher learning. However, Wei Tang's argument would be stronger if she discussed the cons that these sites posed for other groups of people, because users of sites like Facebook are increasingly diversifying. Kids are starting to get Facebooks at younger and younger ages, and increasing amounts of parents and teachers are getting accounts to stay connected with their kids and students. In my opinion, the ability that social networking sites have to keep people connected (like relatives, for example) far outweighs the negatives of the sites.

In the article "Do problems associated with social networking outweigh the benefits?", authors Norah Wei Tang and Elizabeth Anne Wood assume very opposing stances. Tang believes that the use of social networking sites by college students dampens productivity and is nothing more than a huge distraction and time-waster, while Wood thinks that social networking sites allow a new, effective medium for communication and the growth of ideas. There are clearly many contrasts between the two responses, such as example used, arguments produced, and even the organization, but beneath it all there are some similarities in the assumptions made by the authors.

Both authors' arguments are dictated by the assumption that college kids use social networking sites extremely frequently. Right off the bat, Tang says that "...popular social networking sites...are part of everyday life." Most of Tang's argument is centralized around this thought, as she believes the constant exposure and use of social networking eats up valuable time and established weak relationships. Wood on the other hand uses the assumption in order to explain intellectual discussion and engagement that happens over the internet. All of her examples of blogs and websites require that users are participating in large amounts. At the end of her response, Wood even says that "...we learn from our students about the technologies shaping their lives..."

Social Networking Bonds

While Norah Wei Tang, an opponent of social networking, and Elizabeth Anne Wood, a proponent for social networking, disagree on the benefits of social networking, they both make a common assertion that social networking does in fact connect people. While Tang berates social networking and sees it as a waste of time, she still asserts that people are in contact with one another. She mentions the installation of twitter and facebook apps on phones as a means of "instant gratification," yet individuals are still in contact with one another.

Wood supports social networking, and cites some benefits as people research via social networks for their work or studies. People are able to connect and ask questions to increase their knowledge. Social networking allows individuals to collaborate in order to successfully accomplish whatever task they might have at hand. Social networking puts people together for the benefits of the users.

Comparison Between Dissimilar Ideas

Though the two authors clearly have different opinions on the topic of Social Networking websites, they still share a commonality. Both authors agree that the use of these websites facilitates communication. While Wei Tang may see the type of communication that occurs as unhealthy, Elizabeth Wood sees the communication as a positive addition to social interaction. Yet, they both agree that the websites generate interaction between humans. Wei Tang shows us this when she admits that these websites offer, "...the possibility of immediate interaction...". Elizabeth Wood demonstrates her similar opinion when she states that, "Social networking lets many more people-who otherwise might never meet-learn from one another." Thus, they both agree on the factual information regarding the purpose of social networking websites, though they differ in interpretation.

Another area of common ground between the two authors is that social networking websites are taking more and more time out of the daily lives of college students. Whether their use be purely for leisure or purely for educational purposes, both authors agree that they consume a large amount of time.

Similarities Between Wei Tang and Wood

Although Norah Wei Tang and Elizabeth Anne Wood make opposite arguments about social networking sites, they do share some common perspectives. Perhaps the most visible commonality between the two was the argument that social networking sites connect people to other individuals with whom they wouldn't normally be connected. The two authors use this idea to support their arguments quite differently, perhaps because they focus on different groups people can be connected with.

Wei Tang makes the argument that the connections individuals are making via social networking sites are not valuable, but rather distracting. In her perspective, social networking sites connect people with "strangers the social networker wouldn't normally care about." Wood, on the other hand, discusses the importance of communication in education and how social networking allows people to connect with experts. She references as an example her meeting with Kate Bornstein, "an intellectual role model of (hers)" as a result of their connection on Twitter. Though the people with whom individuals connect on social networking sites differ greatly, there is no doubt these sites allow boundaries to be stretched and social interaction to reach new heights.

The Pro and Cons of Social Networking

Norah Wei Tang and Elizabeth Anne Wood both wrote articles regarding the use of social networking sites in a college environment. Norah believes social networking is harming those students who use it in college. She claims that the sites lead to poor time management and can hurt a students performance in academics and also cause them to not have a real social life off the computer. Elizabeth argues that social networking sites offer students a place to come together and share information. It allows for easy calibration on school work and people can play an intellectual role in each others lives.

While their opinions differ greatly, both Norah and Elizabeth agree that time management is an issue that needs to be dealt with. Students who spend too much time on these sites can be seriously affected in their work and life. While Norah makes it seem more extreme, both authors claim there needs to be a point where too much is too much. Elizabeth call this "effective use" and claims it must be learned. They also agree that the sites do offer instant access to information, which can help students.

Spanning the Reach of Social Networking Sites

In the article, “Do Problems Associated with Social Networking Outweigh the Benefits?” both authors, Norah Wei Tang and Elizabeth Anne Wood, discuss the accessibility of social networking posts to a large range of people. As a part of her take on the issue, Wei Tang recognizes this feature as a negative point. She cites the example of pictures someone had posted on Facebook that were damaging to Michael Phelps’ image as a way to demonstrate that such a wide variety of people viewing a given post may have negative consequences. Furthermore, she points out that many employers access Facebook and other social networking sites in search of information on potential employees. If users are not careful what they post, they may lose out on many job opportunities in the future or experience other consequences when certain people view the information.

However, Wood sees the reach of social networking sites as beneficial to society and interation with others. She discusses the ability of information to spread to a wide variety of people, spanning not only academics but the general population as well through the use of online networking tools. Students and teachers alike can extend conversation with one another by posting and commenting on classroom topics. Wood explores how social networking sites do not only have to reach acquaintances and friends, as believed by Wei Tang. They can connect mere strangers in a thought provoking and safe manner. Despite varying takes on the issue of post accessibility, both women acknowledge the capability of social networking sites to reach a wide range of people.

Social Networking Similarities Between Authors

In both of these articles, there is a clear distinction on their views on social networking: Norah Wei Tang who is against the promotion of social networking sites and Elizabeth Anne Wood who supports the ideal of social networking because of its implications to lend to higher education and free exchange of ideas. Essentially, Wei Tang asserts that the use of social networking sites is superficial and that many of the 'friends' that one has, are really just strangers that one wouldn't usually associate with on a regular basis. And in addition, by having access to the internet so readily as a college student, it is easy for one to constantly be connected to a social networking site and have serious time management issues when trying to do other tasks at hand. Yet, on the other hand, Wood exemplifies how social networking "facilitates intellectual engagement." There is a plethora of blogs and other social online authorities that are educational and engage the public in intellectual conversation. Also, one can see how there are applications on social networking sites that are used for online projects, collaborative projects, and study groups.

Despite the vast differences in opinion and evidence portrayed by the two authors, there are similarities. In both articles, they emphasize how the lives of those who use the internet revolves around the use of social networking sites. Wei Tang assumes that most college students are using these social networking sites constantly and need to update it throughout their day. She even asserts that the ones who are more heavily influenced by social networking sites because they are so dependent on being involved that it could cause anxiety or depression from one day's absence. Wood also assumes that with the vast use of the general public on the internet, everyone's use of the social networking sites is what allows the intellectual engagement that Wood is trying to support. By having so many people that are using the social networking sites, it is becoming a more commonly used function of the internet by the younger generations. Both authors emphasize how social networking sites are what are used by the majority of the college student body and are consistently being used each and everyday.

A Similarity Between Two Authors

In the article "Do Problems Associated with Social Networking Outweigh the Benefits?", two authors argue contrasting views of popular social networking sites on the Internet. Norah Wei Tang states that social networking sites are harmful in that they create a huge distriction and serious time management issues. On the other hand, Elizabeth Anne Wood argues that social networking sites are beneficial because they faciliate intellectual engagement by encouraging free exchange of ideas.

Despite theses differences, the two authors have a common assumption; they both agree that social networking sites have become a huge part of students' lives. Tang specifically mentions the high frequency of college students using these networking sites by stating that "As long as users have access to the Internet, they can be plugged in 24/7." Similarly, Wood also assumes that social networking sites are popular among the college students. Her arguement about social networking being a place for intellectual interactions assumes that students spend a significant amount of time on the networking sites and that they are familiar with using them.

A Similarity in a Sea of Differences

In the article “Do problems associated with social networking outweigh the benefits?”, two authors offer contrasting views on this matter. Norah Tang argues that social networks can be distracting and potentially harmful as well as a means of meeting students’ unrealistic expectations of fulfillment. On the other hand, Elizabeth Wood stresses that social networking sites can be a learning tool for students and a means of exchanging intellectual ideas.

Even with theses opposing views, both authors’ argument includes the impact of social networks on the same group of people: college students. Norah Tang states that when students have access to the internet, they often go on social networks during class or when they should be studying, which creates detrimental time management problems. Likewise, Elizabeth Wood explains that students can discuss and learn from each other throughout social networks. She also states that students have the opportunity to learn more about the fields or topics they are interested in by asking experts who utilize social networks about the experts’ work.

social networks: are they assumed to be an integral part of college students' lives?

In "Do Problems associated With Social Networking Outweigh the Benefits?" Tang and Wood argue different viewpoints about how social networking is either harmful or helpful. While Tang is against social networking, Wood feels that social networking can be beneficial in education. Even though the authors have opposing arguments they are connected by common assumptions

One assumption that both authors assume is that social networking is an integral part in college students' lives. Tang uses examples in her argument to support that social networking is bad by saying that students become addicted to the instant gratification received by the connections and also by saying that students spend time making false friends online. However, these statements are only true if college students spend a large quantity of time online. Wood argues that social networking is good by using examples about how students can easily exchange information online and be connected to many sources of information. However, her statements are also only true if college students spend an excessive amount of time online.

A Common Assumption

Although Norah Wei Tang and Elizabeth Anne Wood compose arguments in “Do Problems Associated With Social Networking Outweigh the Benefits” that are completely contradictory from one another; however, they do share the common assumption regarding the amount of time and dependence all college students spend on social networking sites.

Tang directly states her assumption of being “plugged in 24/7” to a social network, and her belief that absence from a social network results in “anxiety or depression.” Wood presumes the same assumption in a less direct manner. Her argument regards the ability to “extend discussions” and “study groups” outside the classroom, once again assuming that the college student is spending a large amount of time on social-networks. In contradiction to Tang and Wood’s assumption, I do not spend large amounts of time on social-networks and am by no means dependent upon them. Both authors assumed that every college student relies strongly on social-networks.