News report # 3

“How Google Instant Could Reinvent Channel Flipping “by Tim Carmody ,published on September 9,2010 on www.wired.com

This article discusses the new feature Google has come up with called instant search. Basically this feature begins searching the web as you type in the search bar. The author at first thinks that this idea is just silly because of the sear size of the web and the fact that Google cannot determine whether you are looking for a movie, book, quote, or anything else. When he rethinks the use of this feature by lowing the data set and which Google device he is using then he finds it to be very useful. The author believes that this feature would be very help with the TV. So if you are searching Google TV then you will be able to begin typing in a movie or TV show title or description and Google will begin searching their database for anything related to that title with movies or television. He uses the example that he has forgotten everything about a movie he saw years ago except that it may have had China in the title and was an action movie. So in a future Google product he will be able to type in c-h-I then bypass anything with Chicago, narrow it to action then pow, there it is with a picture, cast list and brief synopsis of the movie. It would be just that simple. He states that Gmail already has a similar feature that they use to organize their contacts so now all that need to be done is applying this to other local searches. As of right now Google instant search in cool but just wait to see what it means for the future.
I think that is article is very interesting. At first the author seems to think this is a dumb feature but when he puts it in a new context it becomes this amazing revolution. I love the vivid examples he uses to help readers understand what this feature could do in the future and how it may affect them. All in all I found this to be a very well written article.

News Report # 2

Freedom to Read Foundation Awards Seven Judith Krug Fund grants for Banned Books Week Events By Jonathan M. Kelley September 9, 2010 http://ala.org/ala/newspresscenter/news/pr.cfm?id=4910

This article is about grants that the Judith Krug Memorial Fund has given out to schools and libraries all over the country in order for them to go on with projects related to Banned Books Week. Banned Books Week is September 25- October 2 this year. Each year the week seeks to draw attention to the harm of censorship and the freedom to access information. This is the first year that the Judith Krug Memorial Fund has done anything. The Fund was established in April 2009 after the death of Krug who founded the Freedom to Read Foundation. Krug was the person who founded Banned Books week in the first place back in 1982. The biggest grant of 2,500 was given to the Iowa City Public Library, which they will use to support their “Rolling Read-Out!” that will be during the homecoming parade at the University of Iowa. Six other organizations received 1,000-dollar grants to put towards their activities. These organizations include Dayton (Ohio) Metro Library East Branch, ACLU of Pennsylvania, Canisius College in Buffalo N.Y, Santa Monica California Public Library, St. Catherine College in Kentucky, and Takoma Park Maryland Library.
I found this article to be very interesting. I think that is really cool that all of these places are doing things to support Banned Books Week. It was nice to see that the Judith Krug Memorial Fund was also helping them out with grants so that they can make their activities even better. I did not know that Banned Books Week was this popular I mean I have heard of it but I did not believe it was this big.

Reading Response #2

This article is about Wikipedia and how its popularity has decreased in the last few years. Wikipedia was started in 2001, in 2007it hit the 2 million-article mark but it took all the way till August of 2009 to hit the 3 million mark. Why is this? Well in 2007 people for some reason have decided not to create new articles, add information, or even edit errors on already existing pages. Some of the volunteers that edit, add, and go over articles on Wikipedia have recently began trying to improve Wikipedia’s image. By taking off untrue information about living people and adding editorial controls they hope to improve Wikipedia’s trustworthiness. Now before someone’s edit will be posted to Wikipedia it will first be inspected for accuracy by Wikipedia’s administrators. Ed Chi, a computer scientist at California’s Palo Alto Research Center notes that the reason for the slump is because Wikipedia used to thrive on chaos and now with all the controls that monitor accuracy installed it is no longer chaos but rather structured and boring. Another factor that could be adding to the slump is the fact that after so long what information is there left to add or alter. There is no longer the thrill of posting something new only for it to appear either completely altered or for people to pick it apart because it was cited incorrectly. As of right now they have not yet figured out how to attract new editors for the free encyclopedia. So what does this mean for the future of this site? I guess only time will tell.
I think this article was really interesting. I personally have never added or edited anything on Wikipedia so I did not know that there are these controls set up and that you need to follow certain guidelines. I think that the fact that they have established controls over what is posted and its accuracy is a good thing. When in school we all know never to sight Wikipedia as a source because it is considered unreliable due to the fact that anyone can post things. With these controls however it may become a possibility to one-day use Wikipedia as a reliable source. What I do not understand is why controls for credibility and accuracy of information are turning people away from posting or editing? I mean if what you post is wrong and they tell you or someone edits it isn’t that a good thing so that you now know what the right thing is?

Reading Response #1

This article is mainly about different types of misinformation on the web. The article begins by showing an example of a Lip balm addiction web site and whether or not the information can be taken seriously or not. Sites such as this one fall into several different categories such as hacks, malicious, counterfeit, spoofs/parodies/entertainment, disinformation and fictitious. Granted not all things on the web that are wrong fall under these categories some are just simple mistakes that people have made unknowingly. The first category the author hits on is Parody/spoofing sites. These sites are used to show humor toward the original organization, site, or product. These sites are generally not malicious. Counterfeit sites are the most irritating type of hoax sites. These sites try and pass themselves off as a real legitimate websites in order to disseminate misinformation. The example they use is that of a Martin Luther King website that on the surface looked legit but in truth if you looked closer was for white power. Hate sites are often considered suspicious due to there content and some often try to argue that a certain historical events such as the Holocaust did not exist. The government has had a lot of difficulty with disinformation, which is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as the dissemination of deliberately false information, especially when supplied by a government or its agent to a foreign power or the media, with the intention of influencing the policies or opinions of those who receive it. Examples of the government issues include that of the different wars taking place around the world. Misinformation is often subject specific meaning it is focused on a particular subject such as an event like September 11th or even science and health information. Many businesses are affected by misinformation that is the result of upset customers and disgruntled employees. Fictitious website are exactly as they sound completely fake. The example the article use is that of a fictions countries website. Hacks are when someone alters something that already exists this is another type of misinformation.
I found this article very interesting because I did not know what all of these types of misinformation where. I liked that it provided a lot of examples to better explain the different types of misinformation. I now know to better evaluate a website before I use it in a paper or as a reference.