43 Matching Annotations
  1. Apr 2019
    1. Internet law expert Frank Pasquale is among those who have advocated for search result algorithms in the U.S. to be regulated by the government.

      I'm curious about how they are currently regulated. If google is coming up with unique algorithms to filter search results, they are already regulated.

    2. "People equate the position of search results with how true they are," Epstein explains. "What's higher is better. What's higher is truer."

      I think this may be the case sometimes but I think it is also important to look at the rationale behind why people think the stuff listed higher up is true. In many cases, convenience is the answer. If I don't have time to look into something, I usually go with the answer at the top of the page not because I think it is more valuable than the answer or source at the bottom of the page but because I don't have time to read through all of the sources.

    3. "We do our best to prevent offensive terms, like porn and hate speech, from appearing, but we don't always get it right," the spokesperson continued and pointed to a June

      I think this point is getting at an interesting debate about what should be monitored and whether or not freedom of speech comes into play here.

    1. This is the crux of the problem: Google can only show you information if it exists on the web. There are no news stories about Obama not planning a coup, just as web pages about the Holocaust tend to take as a given that it happened. Google can’t refer users to a web page that doesn’t exist, and it is — so far — not in the business of crafting rebuttals itself, which is why conspiracy theories dominate briefly, until they can be noticed and rebutted.

      I think this relates to some of the articles we read last week about how fake news gets more attention than real news. I think the bottom line here is that what is being talked about most is what gets circulated and this is a perfect example.

    2. The problem, naturally, is that Google’s highlighted answers work terribly for queries that don’t have a definitive answer.

      Now that I read this, it is all making sense! Sometimes I get great answers from google and sometimes they make no sense.

    1. And you’re done. That may sound like a lot of steps, but each one is simple, fast, and fluid. Here are those steps executed in real time (video intentionally silent). I really encourage you to watch the video to see how ridiculously easy this is for someone with some training.

      I totally agree that this is easy, important, and something we should be doing to contribute positively to society. However, I think of majority of the time I am reading news which is on my phone when I am walking to class, or sitting on the train during summers, and I know myself well enough to say that unfortunately, I won't be looking up apa.org on my phone and fact checking. However, I do think it is something I should be doing. My question is how do we motivate people to do this?

    1. Comedian Amy Schumer may have contributed to the revival of this fake meme. She put it on Instagram, adding at the end of a lengthy message, “Yes this quote is fake but it doesn’t matter.”

      I feel like many people probably didn't read this all the way through (I know I am guilty of this at times like I mentioned earlier) which means that the fact that the quote is fake does not even register with people.

    2. We’ve long encouraged readers to be skeptical of viral claims, and make good use of the delete key when a chain email hits their inboxes.

      I think the nature in which we read news today (short stories, 24/7 news cycle, emails like the skimm) foster a culture which doesn't give us the time to be skeptical of fake news. I often find myself reading a few sentences of an article and then sending it along because I don't have time to read the whole thing and think it is interesting. This is problematic because I haven't had the time to check the quality and validity of the source I am sending.

    1. If everything is compromised, then everything can be ignored, and filtering is simply a matter of choosing what you want to hear.

      I think this is very well stated and also frightening. I think it perfectly exemplifies why fake news gets spread more easily than real news (the previous article we just read), the answer is that we have the opportunity to push content and choose what we want which means anything can be ignored!

    2. That upper register of “Nope, that quote was used correctly” is something you really have to coax the students into.

      I think this speaks to the way we have been taught in school to debate and question everything. Also, I think we have been taught about the importance of perspective a lot. While one person might think something is taken completely out of context because of their background or opinion, I may think it is in context because of my background and opinion.

    1. In February 2016, a rumor developed that Trump’s elderly cousin had recently died and that he had opposed the magnate’s presidential bid in his obituary. “As a proud bearer of the Trump name, I implore you all, please don’t let that walking mucus bag become president,” the obituary reportedly said. But Snopes could not find evidence of the cousin, or his obituary, and rejected the story as false.

      I think this speaks to my prior comment about the importance of the narrative and the role this plays in spreading fake news. In my opinion, this type of controversial narrative is more likely to get attention in today's society.

    2. Fake news prospers, the authors write, “because humans, not robots, are more likely to spread it.”

      In a way this makes sense to me. I am more likely to read a story that is shared by one of my friends on Facebook or Twitter than I am to read a story from an email that was sent to me by the NY times as an ad because I perceive this as them pushing out their own content.

    3. Fake news and false rumors reach more people, penetrate deeper into the social network, and spread much faster than accurate stories.

      I am curious if this is because of the narrative/entertainment aspect of these types of stories or if it is another reason?

    1. Academics have “contributed to the quality, intellectual rigor, and impact of . . . clinical trials,” the editors of the nation’s top medical journals, including NEJM, wrote in an editorial in 2001. “But, as economic pressures mount, this may be a thing of the past.”

      I am wondering if this paragraph means that since there is room for error the way academics currently operate, going forward clinical trials will be of less quality and rigor so that they are more safe and there is less room for error? I feel like this could have negative implications as well....

    2. The odds of coming to a conclusion favorable to the industry are 3.6 times greater in research sponsored by the industry than in research sponsored by government and nonprofit groups

      I think this stat is really important in illustrating how prevalent this issue is.

    3. Other industry-funded papers published in NEJM have led to conclusions that were later contradicted. Research published in NEJM regarding bestsellers such as the anemia drug Epogen and heart drug Natrecor has been challenged later by studies performed by other researchers.

      I'm curious about where the journal stands today. Have they lost credibility because of this?

    4. The trial had been funded by GlaxoSmithKline, and each of the 11 authors had received money from the company. Four were employees and held company stock.

      I feel like each of the articles we are reading for this week escalate in terms of severity of the process of research and publishing in our country.

    1. As the proportion of female authors over all has grown, the biologists' study found, so has the percentage of women as first authors.

      I think this is a really important point because it shows that the whole system is hopefully changing, not just the top

    2. To be hired on the tenure track in those fields by a top research university, young scholars increasingly must have publications on their CV's by the time they finish their doctoral degrees

      When I was reading the beginning of the article, I was wondering why people don't speak/act against this gender gap but when I read this part I feel like the focus towards the beginning of careers for these people is getting a good job which requires publishing. These people don't have the time/resources to be worrying about much else

    3. Scholarly publishing, more than anything else, is the measuring stick of professors' research productivity.

      It feels like the whole process of publishing is a negative perpetual cycle that is dominated by elite stakeholders

    1. One great takeaway that came from this “unconference” discussion was that a group of us are going to apply to Force11 to start a working group to examine ways of building real and meaningful inclusivity to these broad-based scholarly communication discussions. Our goal will be to craft a checklist or set of guidelines for organizers to consider in everything from convening their steering committees to selecting a meeting location.

      I also feel like more articles and blog posts like this (which bring attention to the issue) are really important in bringing about awareness regarding this one sided North American research. Since majority of the people at the conference left the room to discuss this topic, it became apparent that people feel strongly about this issue which makes me feel like more people in society would want to discuss it if they were more aware about it.

    2. For one, I learned from my Latin American colleagues that they are essentially forced to cite North American or Western European researchers in all their work in order to get published,

      I've learned about this being the case for North American researchers but did not realize this extended globally

    3. There was a lot of talk about building a “global” scholarly commons, but essentially this commons was being built by and for the global north.

      I think this is a really interesting point and I am wondering how we can try to reverse this?

    1. Otherwise, researchers can email authors for copies, request them from interlibrary-loan systems (which can take a day to process) or pay a one-time purchase fee. At the time of going to press, Elsevier had not yet revoked the UC system's journal access

      I doubt many students will want to go through this type of process?

    2. 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 do wonder what this means for UC students and how they will feel the effects of this loss of resources? Is there something the UC faculty is doing instead of Elsevier?

    3. UC's negotiators said the door is open should Elsevier decide to come back with another offer. But they aren’t holding their breath. The system said many other U.S. institutions have shown interest in read-and-publish deals.

      I think it is important for an institution with a large amount of power to be questioning and starting a conversation about this access

    4. multimillion-dollar subscription contract

      !!!

    1. it is about informing the way we collaborate, design, manage, lead, and advocate.

      I think that this informing part is really important because a lot of us don't even realize that this type of inequality exists.

    2. This content would have translated to untold thousands of dollars if he had followed the traditional routes available to him,

      I have always wondered what makes these sources SO incredibly expensive....

    3. In the simplest terms, we are critical educators when we compel ourselves and others to think about power and privilege, and we are feminist educators when we dig beneath the status quo of our content and identify justice-focused approaches to engaging learners in a process of safe/radical self- and system-examination.

      I think this is a great explanation for why we have people thinking more deeply and openly than others....sometimes not everyone has access to the resources that get them to open up their minds.

    4. At their best, libraries are an institutional form of social justice that equalize information availability and provide safe public space for learning and doing. At their worst, they perpetuate inequities and apportion resources among the intellectually sanctioned.

      This makes me wonder about the resources that my town library at home provides.....I am curious about what my access to these resources will be like after I graduate next year.

  2. Mar 2019
    1. fosterbrave spacesin classrooms and on campus,environments where there are trust and belief that students, anyone actually, can take the risks to share theirviews and explore big complex questions openly and authentically (Arao & Clemens,2013).

      My question here is how do we foster a sense of trust and community in these brave spaces?

    2. How can we walk the fine line between developing activists andbeing a member of the“establishment”?

      I think this is an important question and we need more push from administrators/professors to be an activist instead of simply a member of the establishment.

    3. primarily socialized or culturally determined. They consider their values in relation to their multiple identitiesand potential conflicts that could arise within and among their values. My students all have remarked that theywant to be social change agents and are on a quest to figure out what that means for them. They analyze theirdeepest motivations and what they believe is worth fighting for. For example, they consider under whatcircumstances might it be worth engaging in unlawful protest. They also consider the potential consequencesof actions related to activism and other strategies for social change, such as arrest, which could eliminate onefrom consideration for certain future positions from which one could effect large-scale social change.How Do We Help Students See Themselves as Problem Solvers Not JustProblem Identifiers?The press has called student activists“crybullies,”who are good at identifying problems, making demands,and expecting administrators to meet them, thus absolving themselves of responsibility (Porterfield,2016).They have also been called“clicktivists”or“slacktivists,”clicking to sign a petition or“liking”a cause onFacebook. A problem solver, on the other hand, notices that something is wrong, studies the situation,develops potential solutions, and then takes action to address the problem.Daniel R. Porterfield, president of Franklin and Marshall College, provided an example of problem-solving student activism on his campus in response to ugly racist remarks posted on Yik Yak. I have found thisexample worthy of discussion with students who are contemplating how to deal with similar issues. Instead ofseeking to delete or ignore the racist posts, a group of F&M student activists took screenshots of the posts andmounted them on a large canvas with the headline,“You can no longer deny our experiences.”Then theydisplayed their public art, creatively named“Black Yak,”in the student center and included ample b

      Sorry about all of the highlighting, for some reason it is acting up. However, a similar situation happened at my high school and it sparked wide discussion about what we are posting on on social media and the consequences that has.

    4. confrontational action, such as a demonstration or strike

      I don't think it always needs to be confrontational....I think providing a differing opinion can be a form or student activism.

    5. can help us create a campus environment that encouragesand supports constructive student activism.

      I think that even in my short time at Wake I have found that more of my classes encourage constructive student activism. I feel that as a senior, I have many more classes that involve discussions where we give our opinions and talk about change. As a freshman, it felt like all of my classes were one sided lectures.

    1. Because digital environments provide more mystery than answers, inquiry into how to teach online is key—and not just how to load up content into an LMS, but how to reach students, how to create rigorous, invigorating discussions, how to build opportunities for peer-driven learning, how to grow academics in that space, or how to incorporate those more boundary-pushing pedagogies into digital teaching.

      To reiterate my point from earlier, I think the place I interned has mastered this. They have created a digital classroom environment where a professor can call on students who are physically raising their hands. The human connection seems visible as professors have the opportunity to read body language, respond to concerns, etc. I think the benefit of this medium is that many of the students who participate live in places where they would not normally have access to this type of education.

    2. The digital isn’t magic. It isn’t mysterious. It’s regular human communication astride a new medium. Let me say that again: It’s regular human communication astride a new medium. There’s no need to make it more than it is.

      I think this point is really interesting. I have never thought of digital as a medium of communication. I am curious as to how we can strengthen this medium to improve the human connection? I wonder if this is something that will become better or worse overtime?

    3. There were no classmates with whom I could study.

      I agree with this point completely and often find that I learn just as much through study groups and working with other students as I do from my professor.

    4. The real problem here is not that quality suffered, but that people mistook what they were doing within the LMS as pedagogical. It may be teaching—in the same way that reading from a handout is teaching—but simply slotting your pre-written materials into an online framework and calling it a class is not interesting or sound pedagogy.

      Maybe I have not read far enough through this yet, but I personally disagree with this statement. For 2 summers, I interned at Harvard Business School's online education program (https://online.hbs.edu/?c1=GAW_SE_NW&source=US_BRND&cr2=search__-__nw__-__us__-__branded&kw=harvard_business_school_online_phm&cr5=324048267748&cr7=c&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIrNjM2dmO4QIVElqGCh3ZAwQ8EAAYASAAEgIFQ_D_BwE).

      This small start up within the biz school has created a unique, online classroom platform and has been incredibly successful. I think it is the opposite of "slotting pre written materials and calling it a class."

    1. Without grades, “I think my relationships with students are better,” Drier says.  “Their writing improves more quickly and the things they learn stay with them longer.  I’ve had lots of kids tell me it’s changed their attitude about coming to school.”  He expected resistance from parents but says that in three years only one parent has objected, and it may help that he sends a letter home to explain exactly what he’s doing and why.  Now two of his colleagues are joining him in eliminating grades.

      I think the fact that eliminating grading has had an impact on attitudes about attending school is very impressive. In terms of dealing with parents, I wonder if the teacher could provide the parents with updates/comments instead of grades? I can imagine parents feeling frustrated if they had no updates on their children so this could pose as a solution?

    2. Teachers report that students, for their part, often just turn to the grade and ignore the comment, but “when there’s only a comment, they read it,” says high school English teacher Jim Drier. 

      I actually find myself thinking differently when this happens. If a teacher leaves a comment that they loved my paper and gives me a grade of an 85, I get disappointed. I then want to argue with them because I feel like their comment does not align with the grade I received.

    3. Maybe so, but I’d argue that too much attention to the particulars of implementation may be distracting us from the bigger picture — or at least from a pair of remarkable conclusions that emerge from the best theory, practice, and research on the subject: 

      I found this quote really interesting because it reminded me of an experience I had during one of my first writing courses at Wake. During my English Literature course, my Professor explained on the first day that she never wanted us to submit a 5 paragraph essay to her. I was shocked by this because practically all of my high school writing involved perfecting the 5 paragraph essay. My Professor felt that this "attention to the particulars" did "distract us from the bigger picture" which hindered students from producing quality writing.