Skype in School

Technology is progressing in practically every facet of our lives. It is no surprise that technology is being integrated in the classroom. One of the latest tools that is being used more frequently in the classroom is Skype. Skype is a tremendously popular and successful online video chat service. This tool can be used to link a virtual guest lecturer with a class of students. The lecturer could be anyone knowledgeable in an area pertaining to a particular class lesson. The students can ask the lecturer questions directly; this process of interacting with the lecturer would be a fresh experience and might be more appealing (not “interesting”) to students than a teacher presenting a traditional lecture. The students will be more exposed to new ideas because this lecturer has a different perspective, or is perhaps more experienced in an area, than the actual teacher.

There are some prerequisites and problems related to using Skype in the classroom. To start, a teacher would need to have a Skype account and know the basics of how to use Skype. Secondly, a class would need a projector or similar piece of technology that would make the skype video chat on the teacher’s computer available for everyone in a class to see. Moreover, with any piece of technology comes the possibility of a technological problem. A Skype video call could unexpectedly end, and valuable time could be wasted trying to retrieve a signal.

Skype In Classroom

Skype has the potential to provide a lot of educational and learning opportunities in the classroom. Schools and educational institutions have already begun to use this great program in their own classrooms. One method of using Skype beneficially is by using it to call people oversees or far away. Representatives cannot always visit certain schools personally but could rely on this tool to still give a presentation or host a forum. My friend has a class that does just that. Once a week they meet and use Skype to VOIP a certain person who lives far away. They have communicated with people from China and different parts of China using this method and have gotten great benefits from the telecommunications.

The only setback is the different time zones; places such as Germany are 6 hours ahead of the US and this process can be inconvenient for both parties involved if the time zones are too extreme. I know that my friend complained that here class was at 9:00pm. But other than the time-lag itself, Skype offers many opportunities for people to communicate oversees with interesting individuals who cannot visit the educational facility personally.

Skype in the Classroom

First there were smoke signals. Then there was the invention of letters and a postal service. Then man made a revolutionary device called a telephone, shortly followed by e-mail. All of these connected people together and offered a way to exchange information over a distance. But the world now has something that trumps these and takes communication to a whole new level. It's called Skype and is a simple computer programs that allows people to call, video chat, IM, and exchange files with one-another over the internet for free. The service can easily be brought into use in the classroom to benefit the students and offer them more ways to learn the material and exchange ideas.

Skype in the classroom could revolutionize the way college students go about school. Group projects can be done remotely with the students communicating over Skype. It would offer easily collaboration by calling or IM in groups. The only limitation is Skype can only have one on one video chats, but at least you can make group conference voice calls. Another benefit would be asking teachers questions. If a student is lost, they could video chat their professor for help, hold up the problem they're working on, or just add a little more personal aspect than e-mailing offers. Skype also allows easy file transferring that's much faster than e-mail. Students can exchange powerpoints and notes this way in case they missed a class. All in all Skype could really benefit a classroom.

Skype Hype

Skype is a convenient, revolutionary, widely used tool of communication. If I were to imagine a scenario in which Skype would be useful, I would go back in time to my biology class during sophomore year of high school. We had a very cool opportunity to watch an open heart surgery live from a hospital in Chicago. The mechanism through which we communicated with the surgeons was not as interactive as Skype would have allowed it to be.

Instead of the surgeons just hearing our voices while we asked questions, they would have been able to see our faces, allowing for a better conversation. The streaming speed and video quality would also be much better. In general, having the ability to view a surgery via Skype is a great learning tool in the sense that anatomy and physiology can be observed in action. However, nothing compares to actually being in the operating room. Skype wouldn't be able to capture all of the elements of experience, but it is a sufficient, cost-effective method of communication and teaching.

Skype in the Classroom

Before I left for my freshmen year in college I decided to create a Skype account. I thought it would be a great to keep in touch with high school friends and family. Its straightforward setup process and free of charge policy enticed me and helped me realize its services were practical and convenient. While I merely created an account for personal interest, Skype is a program that could greatly enhance the classroom. Many classes, whether foreign language, history, or art, could benefit from communicating with students from different universities or even nations. Curriculum could be diversified and students could enjoy interacting with peers from different locations. Another format in which Skype could benefit the classroom is the thought of utilizing Skype to continue the concept of a classroom. I know that many students have difficulties trying to reach their professor’s office hours, perhaps if professors had open Skype hours students would be able to have more questions answered.

Although the benefits of employing Skype within a classroom are plentiful, they would be accompanied with difficulties as well. The main source of problems would be within the technical difficulties students would encounter. At times the wireless Internet systems can be unpredictable thus causing many lapses within Skype. Another setback may include the amount of time spent in the classroom solely fixing problems related to Skype. Classrooms would benefit little if the entire class period was spent adjusting technological difficulties. Although, in my opinion the benefits outweigh the setbacks and it can be predicted that over the next decade many classrooms will utilize the amenities of Skype.

Skype: The Multifaceted Tool

Skype is a communication tool that allows real time video chat across the internet. In this day and age, it has become an innovative tool relating to internet communication. Especially if we consider its educational possibilities, it could be a very useful tool in the classroom. For example, if a professor was required to go overseas and was unable to attend lecture or offer advice, skype would be able to connect the professor to the classroom. Considering lecture is an integral part of learning material in the classroom, and with a projector, a teacher could use skype to communicate with the class and give lecture. This differ from a recorded lecture video because then the professor would be able to answer questions about things that are unclear.

Yet there would also be detriments among the communication benefit of having skype in the classroom. For instance, having skype on a computer offers a distraction, for it is also a chatting program. It would cause students to become easily distracted and chatting during class. Also, there are limited interaction between skyping computers, if physical instruction is needed, then there is no way that the professor or other interacting entity can aid them.

Skype

Skype is one of the most popular communication tools used by people all over the world. It allows users to make voice calles, video conference, transfer files, and send instant messages over the Internet for free. Anyone who has Internet access can use this software to interact with others. Incorporating Skype into classroom settings will benefit both teachers and students in many ways. One example is to implement the system in a foreign language class. Since Skype can be used to connect with people all over the world, students of a foreign language class can spend some time during class talking to people from France, Japan, or Russia. This will greatly help enhance their listening and speaking skills.

There are, however, some limitations of using Skype in a classroom setting. One would be that the school has to provide a sufficient number of comuputers with Internet access in order to incorporate Skype into the school curriculum. This may be a problem in small schools with not enough fund to meet the needs of the students. In addition, since each student has a computer with the Internet access in front of them, it might distract them from focusing on their work.

SkypER

Skype, the video conferencing and telephone service software, opens many educational opportunities that weren't previously there. A particularly useful benefit of Skype is inter-classroom collaboration. Teachers in remote areas that aren't necessarily the best trained have the ability to learn from other teachers while they are teaching. Another benefit is the cultural mixing that Skype would provide to classrooms. Different ethnicities would be able to experience diametrically opposed cultures.

One of the largest pitfalls of Skype is that Internet access is required. Additionally, in all of the above situations, a camera and microphone would be almost compulsory. An additional setback is timing...it is not always convenient to set up a Skype time for 1pm in Detroit, when it is 2am the next morning in Tokyo. Despite these considerations, Skype opens an extremely wide world of communication, and needs to be seriously considered as a tool in the classroom.

Skype in the classroom

Communication between teachers and students has has grown much more feasible due to the increases in technology and electronic communication. In earlier years, students and teachers would have to meet face to face during or after class in order to ask questions or discuss various matters. If a student had a question about homework while at home, they would not be able to have it answered until school the next day. Now, students increasingly use email to stay in contact with teachers, whether it is quick questions or setting up meeting times. Email is certainly a more efficient method than face to face communication, but it can still sometimes take a few days to get a question answered. The solution to this problem is Skype.

Skype is a program that provides instant messaging services, voice calling, and video calling. If teachers were to make a Skype account for students to contact them with, instantaneous responses would be possible. With Skype, you can see when other people are online and using Skype. Teachers could set up specific times when they are online and able to be contacted by students. They could then stay logged out of Skype during non "office hours" so as to avoid unwanted contact. Although this method is a lot quicker and more convenient than email, it could be seen as creepy for teachers and students to be Skyping, especially if they are using the webcam function. Furthermore, it could completely replace face to face communication as students become lazy and only result to contact via Skype. This could prevent any beneficial student-teacher bonds from forming.

Skype in my Classroom

Skype is one of the best communication tools of our decade. It is a free, online service, that allows for video and audio conversation. It is successful at emulating a normal conversation and interaction between individuals. The prospect of integrating Skype into my education is one that excites me very much. As an architecture student, most of the assignments and projects we do are very visual, however they require us to explain them to an audience. Therefore by using Skype in our classroom, we could present our work to people that are far away, and this would allow for many people's opinions on our work. Allowing for much better and deeper criticism on where i would need to improve.

Furthermore, other benefits would be that by using skype, we could have much more flexible schedules with regard to the office hours dynamic. Because instead of waiting for the professor or GSI to come and see our work, they could observe it from where they are working, and it would cause minimal disturbance. However, there would also be many limitations. One would be that this would be a very intrusive tool, as you might not want to be in contact with everyone at all times. Furthermore, if we were to become dependent on this technology, the dynamic of the critique that is so important to our education could get lost.

Learning with Skype

Skype is a program that seems to be replacing traditional instant messaging services such as AIM, mainly due to its innovative video chat feature. There is a variety of ways that video chat could be utilized inside and outside of the classroom to further the education of students. One way that Skype could be used is that if a student is unable to make it to class because of sickness or something similar, the student could get a direct video feed of classroom activities via Skype. Another way that Skype could be used is to use it as a group instant messenger. It is possible to type to many people at once, so this could provoke discussion about the topic at hand in a format that most students are already familiar with. Often verbal discussions are dry and hard to develop, but if things could get typed then better ideas may get expressed.

Although Skype has these features that could help the classroom, at the same time it has limitations that would dampen its effectiveness. One of the major ones would be the attention span of a typical student. If Skype was being used in the classroom, I think it is safe to say that students would play with it and abuse it by talking to each other about topics that are irrelevant to the classroom. Also, if Skype were to be used from home to watch a classroom, this would also get abused, probably leaving a fairly empty classroom on many days. If one doesn't need to physically be in a classroom, one will not actually go every time. I know some friends who watch many lectures online using other video feed sources and they rarely ever take time to go to the class. When watching the class online, one could also get distracted with other things going on at their computer.

Skype

Today, higher education is experimenting with all types of technological resources from Internet to quizdom clickers and from computers to Infrared Radiation Spectroscopy machines. These programs, machines, and pieces of equipment have proven beneficial in higher education allowing students to learn and explore in new ways. Perhaps then, Skype will be implemented in higher education too as a classroom tool someday. Just imagine the changes Skype could make in a communications course, second life or distance learning, or simply everyday learning in a classroom for students who would like to attend a lecture but are absent. Can you imagine a class room where all students' seats are replaced by computer screens facing a blackboard where the teacher is present? or even more abstract- the teacher is also teaching her arrangement of student faces on screens from a a laptop screen.

Skype is a unique tool that has great potential yet to be explored; it has numerous benefits with some drawbacks that make it a technological resource worth utilizing in education. Skype could reduce costs of meeting in a "school" building. Imagine that if all students needed to do in order to go to class was call a classroom laptop, the need to have a large heated/air conditioned room wouldn't be necessary. The teacher would also be teaching from a laptop at the front of the room and could remain in his/her home and still receive questions and see her students faces keeping personal contact. The drawback from using Skype for this imaginative and creative new way to learn however is that It would be much more difficult for students to interact well with each other unless other technology was implemented to allow students to view the teacher and other laptop students. This idea of distance learning also presents problems with the effectiveness of student learning since it would be near impossible to give an exam via this method when students are linked to the internet through their computers at a location outside of the classroom.

Skype

Skype offers many features which make it a valuable resource for communication between groups of people. These same features have a few but yet still practical applications to the classroom setting. Most of the time, students learn from the teacher who is physically sharing the same time and space as them. However, it would be feasible for the teacher to be removed from the classroom setting and for the students to learn through a video chat with the teacher.


An example scenario where Skype would be an incredibly useful tool in the classroom would be if a student went to a high school where no advanced placement classes were offered. Let’s say, just for effect, that the closest other high school was one hundred miles away. It used to be that this student would have no way of being able to take the advanced class they wanted. However, with the available technology today the student could still take the advanced class by utilizing Skype. The student could be at their school watching and listening in on the advanced placement teacher at the school one hundred miles away. Furthermore, the student could even ask questions of the teacher and the teacher could respond making it seem very much like a traditional classroom. However, the negative side of this is that the student can only see what the video camera will show them of the classroom. The same goes in the reverse direction as well, the teacher cannot always see what the student is doing and therefore lacks the control they have over their students who are physically there.

SKYPE

In the 21st century, various technologies have enabled us to perform at the highest and the most advanced levels. Through the invention of Skype, one can instantly connect by video chatting with another person across the globe. This can especially be useful in our education, in classes such as on International Relations or classes that involve any kind of communication. The convenience and the great usability of Skype make it one of the greatest ideas in the 21st century.
Even the greats have downsides. While Skype may be a new revolutionary item in our lives, it is limited in many ways. If one wanted to practice public speaking, this would not be possible because only 1on1 conversation is available. Also, for purposes of international communication, often times languages are not in synch; therefore, one may not understand another’s language. Skype is required to use internet connection, and this may be a severe drawback because sometimes, if the internet connection is not there, Skype will not be able to function. Despite these drawbacks, Skype’s ability to connect people across the globe will forever be one of the most lasting inventions for us today.

SKYPE: Up in the Sky

Skype is an extremely valuable tool, that could be used effectively in a classroom setting. A strong feature of Skype is its ability to connect anywhere in the world and all one needs is internet access, no money is necessary. Skype would be extremely useful in a class on International Relations. Students could connect with individuals in other nations and negotiate. Not only could they negotiate, but they could also speak in a different language. This would strengthen their business skills, negotiation skills, and language skills. The video conferencing ability is helpful too so the students can put a face to the voice and have a more personal, more realistic experience.

Possible limitations of my proposed plan can arise from time zone differences. It would be very difficult to find a time when a student in America and a student in Germany are in class at the same time. Additionally, skype can be useful in working on foreign language but there is also the possibility that one student doesn't speak the other students language and they would not be able to communicate. Lastly, it is possible that some foreign nations don't have as an expansive internet connection as we do in America. Perhaps one is trying to focus on international relations with Mozambique where students might not be connected to the internet as frequently.

Learning with Skype

One of the classes that can possibly benefit from incorporating Skype is classes that teach speaking strategies and skills or that help student prepare for getting jobs, especially with practicing interviews. This type of class do not necessarily require other supplemental materials such as audio, video or overhead projectors, but are rather based heavily on building up experiences and practicing and improving from feedback. It is not compulsory for students to attend a classroom to practice speaking; Skype will be especially beneficial if a student were to practice one-to-one interview with an instructor. With webcam, the student and the instructor can face each other and practice interviewing without having to travel to classes. Because Skype can be used anywhere with a laptop or a computer; the internet access; and a microphone, students can have “lessons” anywhere they prefer to be, even at home, and save the time travelling from and to classrooms.

Despite these benefits, there is a limitation to using Skype for speaking /interview practicing classes. Via Skype, students do not really practice public speaking; they will only be able to practice speaking one-to-one. In real-life situations, facial expression, stance, gestures, and even appropriate clothing all count towards giving a positive impression to the public audience, or to the interviewers. It is not very easy to practice all of the above via webcam, especially when students have a lesson in the environment they are familiar with and feel very comfortable to be in. With the pressure of standing in front of a large audience or in an interview room with one or more interviewers, students are likely to fail even after many times of practicing answering difficult questions and speaking confidently in front of a laptop screen.

Skype: Welcoming Guest Speakers One Video Call at a Time

The modern communication device Skype has revolutionized computer to computer interaction by allowing users to instant message, chat via microphones, or video chat via webcams simultaneously. With all of this versatility, many teachers have begun incorporating Skype into their classrooms. One possible scenario in which Skype could be advantageous in a classroom setting could be to utilize guest lecturers. Live video feed via Skype would allow busy professionals to virtually enter the classroom and speak without actually having to travel to the school. It is not always possible for a person to travel to the classroom site due to time or cost restraints, but these guests can still impart their knowledge onto or take questions from students via Skype.

Allowing guests to speak to a class via Skype can be very beneficial for students, but it also has some drawbacks. Having a speaker in person often will better engage students and hold their attention longer simply due to physical presence. Being in person also would allow for more interaction between the students and speakers if they were to utilize volunteers for a skit or demonstration, for instance. Also, a guest speaker who actually travelled to the classroom could bring other visuals or objects that could be passed around for students to physically touch and engage with rather than just see via webcam. However, it is not always possible for the speakers to enter the classroom, so Skype makes an excellent substitute for these situations and benefits students by still allowing them to hear what a speaker has to say.

Skype in the Classroom

Of all of my current classes, I could most feasibly see Skype being used in my astronomy lecture. Especially at a large research university like the University of Michigan, some of our professors are pretty important people who sometimes have to miss class for more important things. My astronomy professor is a perfect example of this. Earlier in the semester, he had to miss a few lectures while in a conference in Tokyo. He had a graduate student of his fill in to do lecture for us. While the lectures weren't awful, I felt like it would have been better for us if our actual professor could have delivered them to us. I think Skype could have offered a solution to this. We certainly have the technology that we could have projected his image on the screen and amplified the audio loud enough for everyone to hear. Also, we once had a guest lecturer in the same class because she was better suited to teach the information we were learning. By using Skype, we could more easily have guest lecturers from around the world, not being limited to just those at this university or who are willing to travel potentially long distances to get here.

There are, however, some potential negatives. For one, technological difficulties are by no means rarities in the classroom. Once I had a class cancelled because the webpage containing our assignment for the day wouldn't open. Suppose we had been planning on a Skype lecture, and the signal was consistently lost or there was some other technological malfunction. In this case, a substitute what have done much better than a missed lecture. Also, there seem to be some benefits of face-to-face lectures that even Skype could not fulfill. For example, it would be quite a process if every student with a question had to go up to the computer in the front of a lecture hall to ask them. Also, it would be difficult for the professor to share drawings with us that are typically done on a chalkboard. These are crucial for students who learn visually. Also, I'm no technology whiz, but I'm not sure that a professor would be able to operate a powerpoint presentation from where they are to display in our classroom. This is something we rely heavily on today.

Copyright Laws

The article “The Copyright Balance and the Weight of DRM” argues that it is hard to receive payment from every consumer of a cultural work. The article illustrates a situation where a group of college students watch a movie together, yet the film was purchased by only one person. In this case, the friends of the person who bought the movie can be thought of as consumers of the movie, but they did not pay for it. Likewise, YouTube has myriad clips of movies and even full movies or TV shows that are available to anyone with an internet access. There is currently no means of extracting payment from all the people who watch the videos.

The article also mentions that copyright protects an author’s particular expression and not the content of one’s work. The author of the article says that he cannot stop other people from writing about the same topic that he is writing on: copyright laws. Similarly, when someone posts a video on YouTube that describes, for example, little ways each of us can improve the environment, that person cannot stop others from making similar videos or video responses.

Copyright laws

The chapter “The copyright balance and the weight of DRM” from Gillespie’s book argues that copyright laws help out individuals who are trying to use an artist’s hard work. Copyright laws exists in this world so that individuals can make profits off of his/her work. He also says that these laws, however, are very difficult to enforce because it is hard to control who has access to these properties. Today’s society, however, is not perfect and many normal people illegally upload and download music, movies, and other intellectual properties

Videos on youtube is one of the prime examples of how individuals’ properties are illegally uploaded and downloaded. I believe Youtube does an excellent job on giving due credit and royalties to whom they are owed. The little pop-up messages that always show up whenever a copyrighted song is played and the how quickly Youtube takes down videos violating copyright laws, for example, show how well Youtube enforces copyright laws. On the other hand, I believe this can also have a downside because making it more difficult to access copyrighted material hinders the proliferation of upcoming artists. It makes it harder for smaller and less famous artists to become popular as people can not easily access their music.

Copyright; What Does it do?

In Gillespie's article he notes the importance of copyright laws are to ensure to protection of the artist's work. Copyright laws assist individual's so that they can be assured that their hard work does not go without cause. Gillepsie even goes to the extent that is the role of the government to provide for the safety of their citizens by upholding and enforcing copyright laws.

Youtube is all too familiar with these copyright laws. Videos that are uploaded and have copyright attachments are generally taken down immediately upon upload. Various boxing matches, songs, and music videos are some of the most popular. Just last month I viewed this new Kid CuDi music video, and when I tried to view it a week later it had been removed due to copyright infringement. While copyright laws might impose upon a user's ability to watch a certain video, it is all for the benefit of the creator.

Copyright and Google

Complex copyright laws gets even more complicated when it deals with intellectual goods. Intellectual goods have properties that makes it difficult to apply copyright laws on them. In his book "The Copyright Balance and the Weight of DRM," Gillepsie argues that intellectual goods have two major characteristics that are the main causes of such difficulties; that they are nonrivalrous and nonexcludable. Intellectual goods are nonrivalrous in that their reuse does not cause them to diminish. Intellectual properties are nonexcludable because it is difficult to prevent others to use the goods. Due to the fact that intellectual goods are nonrivalrous and nonexcludable, incorporating copyright laws onto those properties is indeed a complex process.

Videos on YouTube are some of the examples of intellectual properties. Unlike using tangible goods, watching a video clip on YouTube does not deplete it. In addition, nobody can be excluded in watching videos on YouTube. Since people who upload their videos on YouTube are well aware of the fact that their videos can be shared or copied, to them, copyright laws are not an issue. Problems associated with copyright laws arise when people upload movies or other copyrighted television shows on the YouTube.

Dis-intermediation

I truly believe that artists should receive compensation for their work. Paying artists is the best way to promote more creativity and I really think that artists should be paid for their creations. The Internet has made this process difficult to mediate and piracy continues to grow exponentially. Personally, I think that places such as Youtube actually help the artists; they provide a low quality copy of the music that advertises the work of the artist efficiently. But piracy must be stopped. . . but how?

One big reason that piracy continues to grow is because of the inflated price of music. And who actually sets these high prices while pocketing an unsettling amount of the revenue? The Record Companies. These brokers of music have set up an exclusive system that almost forces artists to join. Then the artists are further manipulated and a large percentage of the profit goes directly to the unnecessary record companies. I suggest we dis-intermediate these companies and allow the artists to price their works at a more effective and fair price.

DRM

Do a quick Google search for "Hey Jude" and you'll discovery quite fast that the Internet holds thousands and thousands of links to a copy of The Beatles' famed song, a vast majority offering a free download of it. It is the redistribution of an artists work without any compensation and it has caused a large problem in Internet media. The Internet is a digital rights nightmare right now. Artists and authors are not receiving the compensation for their work like they should. The argument is should all these forms of media have some sort of DRM on them, limiting their travel illegally around the web. I believe they should. Artists spend a lot of time writing, creating music, and creating other forms of media. It only seems they should receive compensation they deserve.

Do a quick YouTube search of "Hey Jude" and you'll see the same thing as in the Google search. There are thousands of movies having something to do with the song and again the artist receives no compensation. While you can't download YouTube videos (easily) there still has to be a line where the use of payed media cannot be put in something free that the whole world has access to. A DRM system in YouTube would be almost impossible to pull off, but I believe something needs to be done.

Copyright

In Gillespie's writing, copyright laws were emphasized to be put into place to prevent the unauthorized use and distribution of artists' work. Basically, they were implemented to prevent others from taking someone's work illegally and for creators to be compensated for the work that they have done. Gillespie introduces that today with all of our modern technology, the abilities to infringe on copyrights has been facilitated, especially since the illegal acquisition of music, videos, etc. is possible with the internet. These days, copyright infringement has been pursued on the internet to save the industries in charge of copyrighted material. This effort is mostly to save the financial situation of many artists who expect to receive money for their work, but find it is being freely distributed.

Though when one looks at Youtube, there is another mindset at work, since all the user created videos are posted for the sharing of art rather that the pursue for monetary values. There are many users who spend a lot of their time to create videos, or post their opinions, only to share with the public their sense of art, so there is no copyright law for them to want to have implemented. Yet, even then there is a need for regulation of the copyright law, for sometimes copyrighted material is posted on Youtube and require moderation to be taken down from the site. While a medium for free speech and postings of public videos, Youtube still takes precautionary measures to make sure that artists, who are copyrighted and don't want their work shared freely, are protected and attempt to protect their work from being on Youtube.

How legal is YouTube?

The idea of copyright has become a very relevant issue with the rise of the Internet today. Many different sites are used for the distribution of many of artist’s works. Whether it is that of filmmakers or musicians, there is somehow a way that their artwork is distributed without their consent. YouTube is an Internet site that allows for the streaming of almost any video. Through this site you can find many uses of songs and videos posted on this site without the consent of the people who made it, but is this a violation of copyright laws.

The article "The Copyright Balance" puts forth the idea that the goods that such artists produced are both nonrivalrous and nonexcludable. This entails that once a certain party buys these “works of art”. There is no way of watching how that person shares it. For example if I buy a CD, I can lend it to my friend for him to listen to it, without thinking that it was illegal to so. Therefore under this way of thinking, I believe that YouTube does not violate copyright laws, it is just a tool for sharing the information with others. It allows for the free sharing of ideas and culture, and could even be beneficial for the artists even if they do not gain financial reward.

Copyright: A Mixed Blessing

The chapter “The Copyright Balance and the Weight of DRM” from Gillespie’s book explores the argument that one of the reasons Copyright exists is to define who receives the profits from a certain piece of work. For example, a singer/songwriter would place copyright on his or her work so that he or she would receive credit for it and therefore take in all finances gained. Monetary compensation is said to not be one of the motivations behind the creation of copyright, but since everything is politics nowadays, it is definitely one of the underlying reasons. Who can blame the artists/singers/directors for wanting money and recognition?

Applying this argument to YouTube is slightly difficult for me since I don't use the sight all that often. However, I have tried searching for videos using search tags such as "snookie gets punched in the face" and am unable to find a video clip. Sometimes a thumbnail will appear, but when I click on it there is a message saying the video has been removed due to copyright infringement. MTV and the producers of Jersey Shore clearly don't want their material floating around the internet, free for people to look at. A similar phenomenon has occurred when searching for movie trailer clips or music videos. I'm not sure who monitors the proper and improper sharing of videos on YouTube, but they are doing a very good job of preventing illegal sharing.

Youtube and copyright infringement

In Tarleton Gillespie’s chapter entitled “The Copyright Balance and the Weight of DRM” from the book Wired Shut: Copyright and the Shape of Digital Culture, he claims that modern technology opens many new doors for pirates to break the laws of copyright infringement. Simultaneously, it makes enforcing the rules of copyright exponentially tougher. As one remedy, Gillespie suggests programming controls into programs that are often used to play copyrighted content. He gives Windows Media Player as an example of an unsuccessful introduction of such program controls; however, many video streaming websites such as YouTube are beginning to successfully integrate copyright controls into their websites.

In the last year, YouTube's copyright protection efforts have developed greatly. In the last couple years, they began removing copyrighted content such as music videos, songs, and film and TV clips. Since YouTube songs cannot be reproduced or sold to begin with, this approach is rather pointless, and as Gillespie would agree, it inhibits expansion of the respective artists work. YouTube is an excellent way for an artist to get their name out there since anyone can access the videos. Thankfully, YouTube has come up with a solution to the problem of copyrighted music videos: Vevo. Vevo is a website that plays official music videos for no charge, and the only catch is a short 12 second advertisement every once in a while. Vevo videos are also hosted on YouTube and appear at the top of search results. This is one of the first steps toward a solution to the problem of copyright protection, as Vevo is able to provide music videos to viewers while still giving the artists credit and compensation

Copyright and Compensation

In the chapter entitled “The Copyright Balance and the Weight of DRM” from Tarleton Gillespie’s book, Wired Shut: Copyright and the Shape of Digital Culture, he discusses the internet and its implications within copyright law. One topic he discusses centers around the idea that copyright laws use monetary incentive to try and promote the creation of various works. Gillespie does go on to acknowledge that compensation is not the purpose for the laws, but it is rather the means by which to achieve the main goal of producing a proliferation of works. He argues that not all people utilize monetary compensation as the primary motivation for producing various pieces of art, music, etc. Some people create art just for the sake of creating art. Others do so to express creativity, improve their reputation, to share their opinions or information, or for other non-monetary rewards.

YouTube is a prime example of people creating works for nonmonetary reasons. Users on the site do not generally possess copyright control over their creations. Thus, they do not receive compensation for each person that views their videos. Some companies may receive indirect compensation if they post advertisements on YouTube that lead to consumers purchasing their goods or services. However, most people post videos for entertainment or informational purposes. In order to ensure that those who are entitled to payment for distribution of their works actually receive their money, YouTube authorities remove any videos from the site that are posted in violation of copyright law. Tarleton Gillespie may not reference YouTube in this chapter of his book, but the site does well in supporting his argument that not all works are created as a result of copyright’s promise for compensation.

Gillespie and YouTube

In the article "The Copyright Balance and the Weight of DRM," the author Tarleton Gillespie discusses various issues related to the copyright law, especially about how technology has made the copyright law even more complex and vague. In the beginning of the article, Gillespie acknowledges of an assumption that human beings need economic reward "in order to be intellectually or artistically creative." However, he claims that in fact, many people create for reasons other than economic reward. This can be easily supported by looking at YouTube. YouTube has become one of the most widely used websites that provide myriad of videos about anything one can imagine. However, a great proportion of the users who upload videos on YouTube are not companies or indivduals trying to earn money from their creation. Most of these people create and upload videos to share funny moments or knowledge with others, to spread their ideas and have some kind of impact on the society, or just for the pleasure of creating videos.

Another argument made by Gillespie is also true of YouTube. Gillespie explains how "cultural expression is nonexcludable," meaning that the spread of a work and everyone enjoying the work cannot be prevented once a work is sold to just one consumer. It is very easy to discover that many websites make use of videos from YouTube. We know that the Internet can spread any work to any part of the globe at a shockingly rapid rate. Not only are the YouTube videos being uploaded on other websites, they are also downloaded and copied by uncountable number of individuals and spread via e-mails, cell phones, and etc. This nonexcludability of YouTube videos can be both beneficial and detrimental to the creators; they can draw public's attention and spread their ideas and thoughts, but because copying a YouTube require almost no money, the creators are not compensated for their creation.

Copyright: Defining Property

In the second chapter of his book Wired Shut: Copyright and the Shape of Digital Culture, Tartleton Gillespie explores the multifaceted structure of copyright, specifically its paradoxical nature, necessity and difficult definition. One topic that he introduces is the difficulty in defining “frictionless” property, property that still deserves the protection of copyright laws. Gillespie explains that some creative work is “inexhaustible” and can be duplicated easily, thus additional customers can reap the benefits of a work simply by sharing and copying. This concept directly applies to the many videos on YouTube.

Videos posted on YouTube are not tangible like a book, thus it is difficult to prevent them from duplicated. Also, it is nearly impossible to prevent a video posted from being shared with others; Gillespie would categorize YouTube videos as “nonrivalrous,” where use does not exhaust its content. Gillespie states that copyright functions by granting the owner of a work “exclusive rights of reproduction and distribution.” However this same law makes the owner of a work responsible for the originality of his or her production. This becomes a problem on YouTube quite frequently. Many video posters fail to properly cite or accredit sources used throughout their video. The vague definition and complex nature of copyright only become more difficult to understand when regarding YouTube.

DRM - ER

The issue of copyrighted original works (TV shows, movies, pieces of art, music, etc.) is a highly contested one. The Writers Guild of America strike of 2007-2008 was fought to earn writers higher compensation for their work, demonstrating the general attitude that artists are underpaid, undervalued, and under-appreciated.

"The Copyright Balance" discusses the implications of DRM, and copyright law. Let's discuss YouTube for a moment. From personal experience, I would say that the copyright laws on YouTube have increased in the seriousness they are treated with. During the infant years of YouTube, entire TV shows could be found online. Now, however, this is not the case. Many videos are removed and present as 'not available' due to copyright infringements. Although a hassle, it prevents people from essentially taking advantage of authors' media.

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.