I think that this is a very important distinction!

You would think this is just common sense but I know of so many people that immediately read something and react

Reading this made me think of the one main newspaper in my hometown and the troubles they had from an emergence and popularity of new online stories. Many complained that the stories on the online newspaper site weren't being produced as fast as other online stories. What they didn't realize at the time is that they were given false information, and the worst part is that many do not follow up on stories to check credibility and accuracy. Figuring out the truth and the real stories takes time and our culture needs to learn how to slow down and value the effort required in producing true news stories.

Although some researchers may not be aware that they are skewing their results, I think that this is a reflection of the bias and desire to produce a drug that will make the company a lot of money. Success in this business seems to be reflected based on the amount of money that is made from the drug rather or more stronger than the benefits that patients could experience. This system is so flawed, but it is also so hard to find the right solution. The production of new drugs is so important, so how do we take out this factor of financial benefit?

The fact that pharmaceutical companies are able to influence the use and production of new drugs with capitalist motives is concerning. Not only are the drug companies influencing research and production of research, but they are also influencing the use of the drugs by influencing the doctors. Doctors are often taken to nice dinners, etc. by pharmaceutical companies so that they can convince them to use their new drug. I think that drug companies have way too much influence due to capitalist means, which could put many in harm.

I think that this is very interesting and should be related to the article about global scholarly communication. Not only is the global north dominating the conversation, but the global northern men. Women are having a hard time when in comes to having a voice in knowledge production in similar ways to those from the global south

I think that this is a result of certain jobs being seen as "feminine" and "masculine." I think that biological and mathematical sciences have been seen as more "masculine," which could explain the under-representation of women in this field.

I would be interested to see the timing of when the increase occurred (if it was slowly over time and/or after large social changes such as around 1970 when it was prohibited for employers to discriminate based on sex).

This is extremely important because if the conversation is dominated by the global north, then the knowledge that is produced "globally" will just be a reflection of the global northern thought and will diminish the thought of the global south. This idea of global knowledge will just result in diminished ideals and will allow the global north to further dominate knowledge production.

I think that this statement brings to light the flaws in the system of research and knowledge production. Knowledge production should not be a result of people conforming to the system and doing whatever they can to be heard, but rather a result of people listening to shared experiences. There has to be a way to validate knowledge production and not only discrimination impacts who gets heard, but also the western journal companies (which are not mutually exclusive).

I can imagine that this would be very irritating for many, but UC making a stand creates a conversation that many need to have about the cost of access research journals. The fact that their access was taken away from them will likely promote and encourage a change.

I think that this is a very interesting point. I have never thought about it, but Wikipedia really does challenge many to think about where information is coming from. It also provides an opportunity for many to share information that might not be able to get shared otherwise.

I recently learned that professors can view what you do and when you do it on Sakai. Therefore in a way, your data and activity belongs to your teacher as well.

I feel like so many of us feel the pressure to be successful by getting good grades that it hinders our ability to learn. I think that this causes students to feel competitive towards other classmates, rather than using them as a source to learn.