"We do our best to prevent offensive terms, like porn and hate speech, from appearing, but we don't always get it right,
I think this is why Google needs a team of human editors- to filter out all the hate speech and harsh language from appearing automatically.
Roof told investigators he had read the Wikipedia article for Martin, and then, "for some reason after I read that, I," he paused before continuing, "I typed in — for some reason it made me type in the words black on white crime."
It baffles me to think that his motives for the mass shooting were found through using Wikipedia and Google. I use both search engines almost every day, and it is disturbing to think individuals use these sources to plan horrendous crimes. But it makes me think how this can ever be stopped, considering the news is out there for the public and it will always been on the internet.
That's it. ... 'He is simply regurgitating, in whole paragraphs, slogans and facts — bits and pieces of facts that he downloaded from the internet directly into his brain.' "
Okay that's scary to think about...
easiest solution would be for Google to hire a team of human editors to monitor and course-correct as needed, but that will almost definitely never happen.
Seems like a pretty essential thing Google should have. A group that fact checks and edits out all the wrong information and fake news out there.
The problem, naturally, is that Google’s highlighted answers work terribly for queries that don’t have a definitive answer.
I know I personally think Google has all the answers, but half the time there are multiple answers to questions and I need to be more aware to read farther down the google search list then just stopped at the top after the blurb.
For an increasing number of searches, Google’s program will attempt to highlight and excerpt the best answer to your query, without you even needing to click on a link.
I have personally fallen trap to just reading these Google blurbs when I quickly searching things on google. I need to be more aware that these are not always the most reliable answers.
Read beyond the headline.
Very important note- to always read beyond the headline to ensure the information is correct and fact checked.
Fake news is nothing new. But bogus stories can reach more people more quickly via social media than what good old-fashioned viral emails could accomplish in years past.
Fake news and propaganda has been around for a while; however, it is now more prevalent with the tools available to widely share news faster.
And blame for this problem cannot be laid with our robotic brethren. From 2006 to 2016, Twitter bots amplified true stories as much as they amplified false ones, the study found. Fake news prospers, the authors write, “because humans, not robots, are more likely to spread it.”
I think this is an unfortunate reality that has taken over our mindsets to share fake news. It is so easy to share fake news because we are not educated well enough on how to catch the red flags of fake news.
There’s really no excuse not to do this for things you share.
Very true...
Now I want to re-share this with people, but I’d like to be a good net citizen as well. Good net citizens: Source-check what they share Share from the best source possible Provide source/claim context to people they share with when necessary
I think this is interesting because a lot of people in our generation constantly share articles and content on Facebook without actually checking the accuracy of what is being reported. Half the time it is just fake news... Therefore we need to learn how to be good citizens and censor the articles we share
they don’t want to spend their trust anywhere, and they think many things are equally untrustworthy.
After taking News Literacy and other journalism classes I have learned the multiple ways news organizations use propaganda and fake news to alter our perception of things. There is biases in almost everything we read and it is our duty as individuals to educate our selfs to catch the red flags and bias in reporting. Therefore, I do not give my trust out to multiple news sources but rather reference multiple news outlets and sources when reading about one event or topic in the news.
But the way that company officials employed academics — and the prestige of the nation’s top journal — to promote the idea that the drug was safe has received little public scrutiny, and a full account offers a window into the corporate decisions underlying today’s drug research.
This is interesting to note that the research/company did not receive backlash after the drug was found to be unsafe. It is sad to me that the blame was not put on anyone but rather quiet and disregarded after the medicine was taken off the shelf.
“We spend a lot of our time reworking language indicating that a drug is a blockbuster, when in fact the data show it’s just so-so,
This is interesting... editing the language to make sure the research is not lying or hinting at something more remarkable than it already is.
is that the research can be biased and that it can be difficult for medical journals to unmask the problems.
I think this is a very important but sad point. Why should drug research that has the potential to save lives be biased? Why with all of the research available is it difficult for medical journalist to unmask the problems. Why is biasses playing a huge role in something as major as a persons health. I think this issue is what needs to be changed.
Ms. Jacquet, and Molly M. King, one of Ms. Correll's graduate students.
Interesting to note that these are women who will appear after Mr. West on the article.
Although the percentage of female authors is still less than women's overall representation within the full-time faculty ranks, the researchers found that the proportion has increased as more women have entered the professoriate.
I think it is interesting to note that reserach had not been conducted in this field until 2012, which presents its own problem. However, it is important to note that the there has been in an increase of female authors as more women have entered this field.
Maybe instead of always having these kind of meetings in places like Madrid or San Diego, let’s schedule events in Dhaka or Lilongwe
Interesting point to note change by moving the meeting location...
As much as we declare the importance of openness and transparency for our research, we should be doing the same in our scholarly communication discourse. The conversation needs to be an actual conversation and not a one-way soliloquy from the global north that gets imported colonial-style to the global south. There needs to be a dialogue, real dialogue, that decenters white North American and Western European values and knowledge creation.
This part of the article grabbed my attention and plays a key role in the solution to transforming scholarly communication on a global scale. Even though we advocate and declare for openness surrounding our research, there is little discourse on the topic of scholarly communication. This dialogue needs to be changed on not be focused on a one way discussion between those of privilege, but rather an real dialogue that encompasses the global north and global south.
If UC decides to subscribe to some Elsevier journals on an individual basis, or frequently pays for one-time access to journal articles, the system may end up paying a substantial amount to the publisher, at worse value than their old big deal, said Rick Anderson. “I’m sure this development will represent a net loss for the company, but I don’t know how big it wil
It will be interesting to see if UC decides to subscribe to a few article and publications after backlash they might receive from pulling out of this multi million dollar deal.
anet Napolitano, UC's president, said she fully supported efforts by students and faculty and staff members to take down paywalls. “This issue does not just impact UC, but also countless scholars, researchers and scientists around the globe -- and we stand with them in their push for full unfettered access.”
I think quote from the president is important. Stating this issue is not just an issue/discussion at UC but rather sprouting from a larger issue around the globe with ridiculously expensive access to articles and research.
But the offer came with a hefty price tag, the negotiators said, which the system was not willing to pay.
Doesn't it seem like everything comes with a hefty price these days...
has canceled its multimillion-dollar subscription
Multimillion-dollar?!! ok like thats alot...
“Why in the world does it cost so much?” “It doesn’t make sense!” “You mean all libraries have to pay like this?”
To be honest I had never much thought about or noticed this discourse surrounding infromation privilege. Knowing I am entering into an industry that is highly supported by research is interesting to note as well-, because without that research the advertising industry might not be as strong as it has become. One thing that also came to my mind was how expensive access to articles and subscriptions has become, but I never knew that because I have always attended a school where it has been payed for. I had never noticed the information privilege I have had access to until just now while reading through this article.
To be brave means“being vulnerable and authentic, speaking our truth evenwhen we are unsure. To be brave also means to listen and be open to others even in the midst of discomfort”(Rollins,2016, para. 1). It is in brave spaces where the deepest learning occurs.
I agree with this statement, in order to have the deepest amount of learning and most influential change, there needs to be a brave space. In this brave and psychological safe space, one is able to be vulnerable and authentic, while also being open minded to others opinions. This concept is much more important than implementing and ensuring safety on campus all of the time.
People in positions of power, I think they believe nothing is going to happen....We’re just going to yell andscream and hold up signs and nothing’s going to change. But you’ve got an entire generation of people thatrealize something is wrong and something has to change because the system is wrong
I believe this quote is more important than ever considering what has occurred in the past few years. Reflecting back on Charlottesville, Sandy Hook, or even Parkland it is clear to see the importance of student activism. Not only did a few of these incidents occur in schools, but after there was a nationwide out cry for gun protection. Even on our own campus this discussion occurred after the barn shooting back in 2018. But while these discussions have occurred, this quote is sadly accurate in saying that nothing may change. However, our current generation knows something is wrong and is advocating for this silence to end and for change to happen across the nation. I believe student activism is crucial to incidents like the ones mentioned above to help create real change. But here raises the question, how can student activism lead to this crucial need for change? I think our generation needs to use our resources available (online platforms, student organization, and etc.) to continue this discussion on how to get the ball rolling for change.
Teaching online and in hybrid spaces must be considered an academic field in itself; it is an academic pursuit. Digital teaching and learning is scholarship.
I think this is an interesting point to note. I agree that it takes a lot of learning and patience in order to understand a online teaching environment; however, I believe it is completely possible with the references we are given today. For instance this software right here that pinned to my search bar and allows me to participate in a public classroom settings. You do not have to be a scholar to use this software, just a curious and open minded individual.
It would, in fact, be a mistake to think that what any of us do is digital. The endeavor of education—even outside Humanities fields—is human. Immediately upon recognizing this, we have to ask: what approach to digital (environments, tools, learning, networks, etc.) allows us to reach through the jargon and the hype and the code to find the human?
I think this paragraph is accurate in the point that it makes regarding a digital teaching platform and a human being. I think at the core of teaching no matter what the platform is, is the human behind it. The question then becomes what forms of technology will we use to continue teaching in a more digital and less analog world, all while keeping the human being the center of the teaching process. No matter what though, I do think the human will continue to be the center behind the technology. It is interesting to see the multiple ways a degree can be earned these days through the use of technology- whether thats a completely online institute or just a few online course here and there.
Grades tend to reduce the quality of students’ thinking.
I think this point is very interesting to note. Many college students just read for what they think they "need to know." This limits the students ability to learn- knowing, that they are just memorizing or reading information. I have been in countless classes here at Wake were students will ask teachers "Is that reading going to be on the test?" "Do we need to know that?" I think this is the norm for our generation as the classroom has become so competitive and students want to get the best grades with minimal work.