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.