I would be interested to find out more information about how some information on Wikipedia is censored in other countries around the world- particularly medical and not political information.

I think that one reason that Wikipedia is sometimes better than these medical specific wikis is that the "critical mass" as the author says, is larger- therefore, this allows there to be more eyes looking over and correcting incorrect info. The lesser known wikis are subject to have more out-of-date info if there are less people reviewing the site.

The authors make a good point here that we must not forget- Wikipedia acts almost as a place to direct others where to look for important information on a topic. Its references all located in one place can actually be more useful than the content on the website itself.

I think that Wikipedia is a very successful tool for broaden the general knowledge of one on a particular topic. Even though not all the details might be correct, since there are so many users, the general facts are generally accurate. I think that just generally having a more educated public would be a public benefit.

It would be interesting to know if there are any types of systems in place that would bring an article or health related information to review every year or so? How does one address that not frequently viewed information may become out of date (and if there are not a lot of viewers, than there are not many people likely to correct the information0?

I wonder how this would actually be accomplished- it would take a long time for someone to go through all the articles and topics to determine which contain this "critical" information and then "protect."

I would like the author to go into more depth about the "impact" that online health information can have. Is it mostly positive, or negative? It would be interesting to assess the potential dangers of having so much information (and not necessarily accurate information) online.

The author makes a good point- here, it seems like patents aren't being used as incentives for the original scientist but rather as a way to safeguard public dissemination of knowledge.

The point about communism in science is fascinating. I agree with the author in his assertion that esteem and recognition act as incentives to the scientific discoverer rather than intellectual property (in the cases in which the scientist aren't granted fully intellectual property/rights). This is an interesting perspective on what we have discussed in class.

This is such an interesting point. I would be curious to know if there are places where this is occurring right now. If the scientific community truly is enforcing some type of caste-standards system, then the science of the scientists they consider 'inferior' would not be made public. The general public might not be aware of these instances.

I would be interested to further look into this assertion and see what the long-lasting impacts are of this time period, particularly during WWII, to see how this dishonest group of scientists have effected the long-term social trust in science.

This quote reminds me of times when governments push initiatives in their countries for increased scientific research in order to increase the countries' knowledge so that it can implement change. Obama's State of the Union address last night addressed several science topics which he wants to the US to invest in (cancer research, space travel) in order to deepen the countries' knowledge.

I agree with the author on his point that the way in which science is described to the public has a great influence on how it is excepted regardless of what the actual scientific evidence/ work is.

I agree with the other students that this point is quite interesting. The author's focus on western culture makes it very interesting to consider the different ways in which societies around the world view science- both in the past (as this article was written in 1973) and in the future. I would be interested to hear more about the perspective of non-western cultures on science today.

Very interesting point that the author is making about "discursive practices." I wonder what exactly the author is using to detemerine whether something is a discursive practice?

I feel as if there are still many similarities between an author of written works and an author of music, for example. In both cases you can argue that the focus should be more on the archetypal, overarching elements common between many pieces of work rather than the specific technique used by the author. For example, you can talk about a style of simile used in many works in much the same way as you study a reoccurring musical movement.

Here, the author seems to make a case for focusing on archetypes in literary works rather than just stylist elements of a particular author.

This definition of an author is quite interesting- it seems to insinuate that the role of an author is to capture a short moment in time and its cultural context. Does this definition then change how we assess writings, if we are expecting them to "characterize" a particular discourse and share information about a particular part of a culture?

It is interesting to consider the frame of context that one must use when analyzing writing. Does one judge a piece of writing based on the individual piece or by the whole collection of work by that author? It is interesting how the interpretation of one piece may be vastly different when compared with other works. How do we best analyze writing then?

This was a very interesting point that really made me think. I agree that most people think of writing as a way of immortalizing the author's opinion and perspective. The idea that writing might actually remove any emphasis on the writer and rather shift the focus to the work itself is quite interesting. I would like to learn how Foucault came up with this premise.

It would be very interesting to cross culturally compare the legal patent situation in the US and other countries around the world. Are there other cultures that have legal institutions that are more in favor of the 'small inventor'? As the author mentioned, the US has always triumphed their homegrown inventors, and I would be interested to see if there are other countries that have created rules that better support the individual inventor?

Once again, it seems like these patent trolls are going against Locke's principles of property. His fifth point essentially asserts that its not justified for one to own property and be wasteful- just like the apple example the Professor Willinsky gave in lecture in which it is not justified for an individual to have the only apple tree and let apples spoil without sharing with others.

I thought that this was quite an interesting point to make. Nocera is indirectly pointing out one of the discrepancies with Locke's Theory of Property and the actions of the patent trolls. Locke's 7th point was that the right of property was to increase the common stock and "benefit all." However, according to Nocera, it seems that quite the opposite is occurring.