I think Google really needs to focus on amending its autocomplete results and base it not only on popularity of search, but also take into consideration the implications of the results so stereotypes won't be fed/implanted into peoples minds e.g. "are muslims bad."

This goes back to the tutorials by Mike Caulfield, who compared two sources, with one being a credible source and the other being an ill-funded conservative group. We can assume that Roof was consumed with information that came from a perspective that originates racial division, hence his radical ideologies.

This is a more accurate depiction of Google rather than this idea that it is a hub of accurate and complete information - I've noticed that many of my more ambiguous queries just match the body of text as closely as possible rather than answer the question.

True. Not everything on Google is correct, as many fake sites exist. We need to be cautious of what we deem reliable information.

It makes me wonder whether these algorithms hold a bias (political, social etc.) as oftentimes when we google we take the first answer and move on rather than scrolling for an alternative answer that we think is right.

True. There are standard headlines then there are fake news headlines which appease to our inclination to look for shocking news articles

It's probably because fake news hinges on being extreme in their "reporting" and so fake news can sometimes induce greater reactions

This seems dangerous as I usually look if the source is credible without looking any further as to whether the information corroborates

This is often a small detail that I tend to overlook since my primary objective is to read the content of the article

At the end of the day, I think we're all just too lazy to go through these formal checks. Social media is a dynamic platform, and we all want to share information while it's hot and trending; taking 30-90 seconds out the day to verify the information is a habit I don't think will catch on anytime soon.

I think what this article uncovers is that the level of credibility we attribute to a source can be contingent upon our personal beliefs, values, and preference which suggests that we can't necessarily produce or consume information that is universally accepted.

Understandable - it's hard to draw a definitive line between good research and extrapolations due to the history of abuse

Very true - the only difference is that the stakes are a lot higher when it comes to medical research due to the adverse effects on human beings

I think we can draw a connection to society where men were traditionally seen as the stronghold and the prominent figure in the household and women (mothers) are cast in the shadows and not always given equal credit as contributors - important to note that today times are changing now and roles are shifting to less "conventional" ideas of a family unit

I think it is a shame that in order to have legitimacy in research that they have to cite North American/Western European scholars

This reminds me a lot of the 'diversity' requisite I see now...whether that be marketing a college campus as XX% diverse or companies advocating for diversity and inclusion, I feel as though it is a way to make people think that they value diversity when at times it may just be a response to the changing makeup of todays diverse demographic. Not quite sure if individuals and institutions are being truly sincere in their efforts or whether they're doing it to be accepted

I think coming from a nonwhite perspective, it's sometimes uncomfortable to deviate from the majority who are mainly caucasian individuals and feel as though your opinion is as equally valid and respected

You may've already used this but if you go on WIN>Directories>Alumni/Parents/Donor services, you're able to search current students and alumni who work in your respective fields of interest and can even dilute your search down with various filters such as geographic region, job specialty etc. It's great because it has a meter that shows your level of similarity with your peers/alum and also provides their contact information and some of their involvement on campus. The only problem is if you filter down for a specific company, you have to get the exact wording that they used which differs from person to person e.g. EY vs. Ernst & Young vs. Ernst and Young.

So true. I felt like in my English divisional I was penalized for having a completely outlandish perspective on the readings that didn't corroborate published resources already

I forget how libraries have such a vast number of resources readily available for free use for students at Wake. For example, I needed to read a book during the summer to get credit for my study abroad internship, and I was able to find the book in the library (instead of paying $20 for it on amazon) - as a business school student, that was the first time I had really used a library before.

I feel like this statistic shows how we are always driven by incentive and never truly doing things based solely for wider benefit. Let's think, if these publishers weren't monetizing their journals, would they feel the obligation to execute their research to the highest standard?

psychological safety in the exchange of ideas is much more important than being politically correct

This is difficult because on one hand, we are allowing artifacts to remain that represent dark periods in history, however, by removing them, we are in a way diminishing the very fact that such atrocious acts even happened/existed which paints an unfinished picture of the past (out of sight, out of mind).

Due to the extreme nature of Trump's political views, I think his presidency invigorated a wave of activism and an urge to make opinions be heard more clearly. Millennials are definitely outspoken, however, it is interesting to see how Trump's controversial administration has unearthed this new sense of responsibility to ardently rally for what people believe in and motion change instead of sitting in silence and letting issues persist.

Although LMS systems are used in all of my classes, I am lucky that it is only used as an administrative means to upload files and grades. The classroom doesn't seem to be affected by this system too much

It implies a level of ignorance and causes teaching to become stagnant as there are no considerations made to the potential changes in preference that students may have to feel engaged in the course

Reading this quote in isolation annoys me and really speaks to the impact that grades have had on the education system. I think part of being an instructor is to be able to guide and mentor students to become better versions of themselves and well versed in the subject that they are teaching - that requires individualized, honest, and constructive feedback and shouldn't be considered a chore

This is very true - as a college student at a liberal arts university, when selecting divisional classes that are required to graduate, oftentimes we seek the "easiest" class as opposed to the class that provides the most mental stimulation

Writing can be used as a form of self-expression and a means to communicate all of our ideas and inferences no matter how big or small. Grading hinders creativity, as views that we hold that go against the individual administering the grade limits our capacity to think beyond what is accepted by the professor