Wikipedia Extra Credit

What is Wikipedia?

Wikipedia is a multilingual, web-based, free content encyclopedia project. Wikipedia is written collaboratively by volunteers; its articles can be edited by anyone with access to the Internet. Wikipedia is an online free-content encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales has described Wikipedia as "an effort to create and distribute a multilingual free encyclopedia of the highest quality to every single person on the planet in their own language." Wikipedia exists to bring knowledge to everyone who seeks it. Wikipedia's name is a portmanteau of the words wiki (a type of collaborative website) and encyclopedia. Its primary servers are in Tampa, Florida, with additional servers in Amsterdam and Seoul. Basically Wikipedia is an internet Encyclopedia that has billions of information on it that people can use. Majority of wikipedia information is legit. Also the amazing part about wikipedia is that it allows you to edit whatever you want. So the users have some responsibility for wikipedia also.

Wikipedia's English edition was launched on January 15, 2001, as a complement to Nupedia, an expert-written and now defunct encyclopedia. The project is currently operated by the Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit organization created by Jimmy Wales, the co-founder of Wikipedia. Wikipedia has approximately 7.2 million articles in 251 languages, 1.7 million of which are in the English edition. It has steadily risen in popularity since its inception, and currently ranks among the top fifteen most-visited websites worldwide.

Before being introduce to it this semester, I had no idea what wikipedia was. As I wrote my first Blog every, i found it kind of difficult to find information on what I needed. But once I saw wikipedia, I used it constantly. Wikipedia really Helps people to understand what they are looking for. Not only does it give you definitions of a term or subject, but it also discuss everything that lead to it and examples of it.

As the semester went on, I got really comfortable with wikipedia. My blogs continuously got better because I knew exactly where to find the information that i needed. Wikipedia is a great tool and is helpful with finding anything that anyone is looking for. The benefit of wikipedia is that it is a source of information. Even thought some articles on wikipedia may be biased or inaccurate, most of its articles are more helpful than majority of those other sites.

The extra credit assignment was a little confusing at first. But after playing around with the wikipedia site, I figured out how to post articles and it was very interesting to see how people edit my article.

References-

Wikipedia, Wikipedia, the free Encyclopedia, 2 May 2007, from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia

Boxing aint for PUNKs

Boxing is a very popular sport viewed widely across the world. It has transformed itself from a brutal massacre to a highly organized institution of physical agility, strength and technique. Boxing originated in the early 18th century in England. At this time boxing was very different from what it is today. The word boxing had not been developed yet it was actually called bare knuckle fights or fisticuffs.

The bare knuckle fights had no rules and no referee or time limit, so participants would fight until they couldn’t go anymore or someone gave up. Sometimes a fight could go on for hours and no tactic was excluded, so this meant anything went such as choking, kicking, wrestling etc. For many years no one paid any attention to the weight of each participant regardless of who was fighting. Furthermore, professional fighting was only including middle and upper class at the time. This method was also another way to settle any quarrels. As this type of sport blossomed people began to sponsor fighters with money as prizes, some built small arenas and opened schools to teach the “art of self- defense.”

The first boxing champion was James Figg in the year of 1719. Figg was the reason that this sport became so popular due to all of his sparring while traveling around England. In the year 1740 James Figg had died and his protégé would then follow in his footsteps, George Taylor. Before Figg died, in 1734 Jack Broughton had devised a set of rules called the “Broughton Rules”. These rules just explained that it was illegal to eye gouge and hit an opponent while his was on the ground. When Broughton died a lot of these rules were not enforced therefore it became known as the era of “The Double Crosses”.

The next important person in the history of boxing is Daniel Mendoza. The reason why he is so important is because he actually designed a system that focused on both physical and mental strength. This combined things like guarding, sidestepping and using an appropriate left jab. This regained the public’s affection towards the sport. Since he was relying on this system, he won the British championship in 1791.

Bill Richmond, “The Black Terror“, was the first black boxer who crossed over to Britain. He was victorious over several top heavy weights but unfortunately was knocked out by the previous champion Tom Cribb in 1805. Tom Cribb was challenged twice more by another black fighter, Tom Molineaux, in 1810 and 1811 but still won. The only difference was that Molineaux was the first American to challenge a British title. The first American champion was Tom Hyer in February of 1849. This actually took place in America while using the “English prize ring rules”. And finally the first world champion was John C. Heenan in April of 1860. This fight lasted for 37 gruesome rounds.

John L. Sullivan became the next heavy weight champion and remained that way for the following 10 years. Some thought of him as “American’s first true sports hero”.He expertly earned $900,000 during his 10 year career.

The fight that dethroned Sullivan from his 10yr winning streak was with James J Corbett. This fight took place in 1892. It was fought with gloves, prohibited wrestling and the rounds lasted 3 minutes. These rules were called the “Marquise of Queensbury Rules”. These rules are the basis for today’s boxing.

The fisticuff matches of today has had plenty of fighters in and out of the rings. Winning and losing by forfeits, knockouts, and judges watching how many punches are thrown and how many are actually landed. Boxing is now comprised of many different rules. Some examples of these rules are, first, that it only lasts twelve rounds; you cannot wrestle nor strike your opponent in the back of his head; it is open to all those who can win, no matter your “class”. Boxing is separated into sections of weight and there is a league for woman as well.

Boxing has come a long way. Good fighters get paid very well for doing this. It takes a lot of training, the best agility and the fastest speed. Boxing is not just a gruesome fight that never ends anymore. It is considered a sport that has rules and gives many rewards. Many in today’s society enjoy watching and taking part in these fights. It gives entertainment to many and fulfillment to the fighters.

This Lead to the boxing we see on TV now, with some of the greatest fighters like, Roy Jones Jr., Bernard Hopkins, Mike Tyson, and Floyd "Pretty Boy" Mayweather.

Just thought I'd talk about something totally different, Everyone have a great summer ;-)

References-

Early Boxing, (01 July 2004)

Hickoksports, 29 April 2007, from

http://www.hickoksports.com/history/boxing01.shtml

Boxing, (12 August 2001), 29 August 2007, from

http://www.owingsmillsboxingclub.com/boxing.htm

Early Boxing, Wikipedia, the free Encyclopedia, 29 August 2007, from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxing

Go play with yourself and STOP worrying about Network Neutrality

Network Neutrality?

Network neutrality (equivalently "net neutrality", "internet neutrality" or "NN") refers to a principle applied to residential broadband networks, and potentially to all broadband networks. Precise definitions vary, but a broadband network free of restrictions on the kinds of equipment attached and the modes of communication allowed would be considered neutral by most advocates, provided it met additional tests relating to the degradation of various communication streams by others. Arguably, no network is completely neutral, hence neutrality represents for some an ideal condition toward which networks and their operators may strive.

In other words......

Network Neutrality is the guiding principle that preserves the free and open Internet. Net Neutrality ensures that all users can access the content or run the applications and devices of their choice. With Net Neutrality, the network's only job is to move data, not choose which data to privilege with higher quality service. Net Neutrality prevents the companies that control the wires from discriminating against content based on its source or ownership. Net Neutrality is the reason why the Internet has driven economic innovation, democratic participation, and free speech online. It's why the Internet has become an unrivaled environment for open communications, civic involvement and free speech.

What's at Stake?

Before long, all media such as, TV, phone and the Web will come to your home via the same broadband connection. The dispute over Net Neutrality is about who'll control access to new and emerging technologies. With the internet everyone has the right to access any information, services and application that are available. But without Network Neutrality, the Internet will look more like cable TV. Network owners will decide which channels, content and applications are available; consumers will have to choose from their menu. Without Net Neutrality, decisions now made collectively by millions of users will be made in corporate boardrooms. The choice we face now is whether we can choose the content and services we want, or whether the broadband barons will choose for us. Do internet users really want someone we don't no with a business suit to decide what is appropriate for us to see? Are we kids that need to be watched and have decisions made for us?

Small business Vs. Big Corporations

Small business owners benefit from an Internet that allows them to compete directly, not one where they can't afford the price of entry. Net Neutrality ensures that innovators can start small and dream big about being the next EBay or Google without facing insurmountable hurdles. Without Net Neutrality, start ups and entrepreneurs will be muscled out of the marketplace by big corporations that pay for a top spot on the Web. There would be no competition, big corporations has the most money so they would basically be buying everything and leaving nothing for the small businesses. The creators of EBay and Google at least had the opportunity to create something new and everyone uses it. Why take away the dreams of other small businesses? Maybe they can create something better than EBay and Google. Taking away Network Neutrality is like taking away life and hope for small businesses.

Who wants to Destroy Network Neutrality

The nation's largest telephone and cable companies, including AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner, wants to have control of the internet. They want to decide what Websites should be allowed to access and what shouldn't. They want to tax content providers to guarantee speedy delivery of their data. They want to discriminate in favor of their own search engines, Internet phone services, and streaming video, while slowing down or blocking their competitors. These companies have a new vision for the Internet. Instead of an even playing field, they want to reserve express lanes for their own content and services, or those from big corporations that can afford the steep tolls, and leave the rest of us on a winding dirt road. Some telecommunications executives have argued that they should be able to prioritize information from sources paying higher fees or serving higher purposes. A prioritized system, which would create an Internet fast lane for higher-paying content providers, would help fund network improvements, according to Internet service providers

Trying to keep Network Neutrality Alive

SavetheInternet.com is one of the main sites that are made up of hundreds of groups that are trying to save Network Neutrality. Their are other supporters such as such as Amazon.com, Earthlink, EBay, Google, Intel, Microsoft, Skype, Vonage and Yahoo. If anyone other than these networks would like to help they as that people should sign the savetheinternet.com petition or call congress and demand them to allow Network Neutrality to continue. In the article by K.C. Jones, she says Net neutrality opponents, including President Bill Clinton's former press secretary Mike McCurry, also argue that Internet service providers should be able to direct heavy traffic and screen out some material, like viruses and spam. They say some content, like medical information, is more important -- and therefore should take priority over -- other information. They argue that innovative applications in medicine and other fields will spring from improved services levels guaranteed through higher premiums and government regulation would kill the freedom that has allowed the Internet to flourish.

Extra Info

The Internet has become a vital engine for democratic participation, economic innovation and free speech. As the Internet becomes our public square and economic marketplace, Internet access must be regarded as a civil right for all Americans. The attempt by some to act as Internet gatekeepers imperils the social and economic promise that the Internet holds for our future. Congress and other public officials have a vital role to play in preserving Internet freedom and ensuring that America's communications infrastructure benefits the common good.

My Opinion
Wow, I definitely wouldn't want congress to take away Network Neutrality. I love being able to access information and services that I want. I don't want a company to decide whether something is good or bad for my eyes. I'm not a lab rat. I'm tired of big corporations trying to take over everything just so they can make a profit and try to beat out other companies. Why should internet users be punished just because some dumb corporation wants to control the all websites and the world. That's not how it works, its freedom to see what I want to see. As long as its not breaking any laws then whats the problem? Internet users are not little babies that need to be nurished and shown what to do. We have a mind of our own and we don't need people in high places trying to turn us into robots and make us do what they say. They should not take away our internet freedom. Its Violating the first Amendment of the internet. Its bad enough that their are internet police that can see my emails and instant messages. And now they want to control everything I see and do. This isn't China where they can hide Tiananmen Square protests from their internet users. China should be a huge example because the U.S. complained to Google for allowing them to hide information from the Chinese citizens eyes, but now these corporations want to control us the same way China controls their people. Why complain when someone else does it if they are trying to do the same thing? The internet has improved throughout the years and its one of the best ways for open communication, accessing information and free speech. Why take that away from people just because certain corporations want to have control of everything. They are expecting us to PAY for certain information in order to have High speed on it. That's just crazy, why pay when its already free. Network Neutrality also helps people decide certain political issues. Although the internet has its flaws, it gives people access to the truth and other views about many political issues. Why watch a station like FOXNEWS that is basically in favor of Republicans when i can just go online and see what others has to say and there issues wont be biased. You can get information so much faster online then having to go buy a newspaper. We have the right to write what we want, when we want. Why take that away? Why should a company make decisions on what is seen and unseen? The internet is great the way it is. Why don't these big corporations go help and donate some money to Hurricane Katrina victims instead of worrying about the Network Neutrality. The internet is fine the way it is, so LEAVE IT ALONE.

Go play with yourselves Dumbazz

References-

Network Neutrality, Wikipedia, the free Encyclopedia, 13 April 2007, from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality

Save the Internet.com, Join the Fight for the Internet, 13 April 2007, from

http://www.savetheinternet.com/=faq

K.C. Jones, Net Neutrality Debate Remains Contentious, 16 March 2007

Information week, 13 April 2007, from

Ublearns

Real vs. Virtual

Real life Vs. Virtual Economy

Real life can be a controversial term. Some people use it as a value judgement to describe "productive" activities, specifically jobs or the support of one's family. In this case, activities described as real life are seen as "better" than other activities, such as playing video games or surfing the internet. However, many speakers use the phrase in an ironic sense to describe an alternative to their own activities, which may be valued as more important.

A Virtual economy (or sometimes synthetic economy) is an emergent economy existing in a virtual persistent world, usually in the context of an Internet game. People enter these virtual economies recreationally rather than by necessity; however, some people do interact with them for "real" economic benefit.

Intersection of real life and virtual economy

The internet has evolved tremendously throughout the years. It has also lead to the creation of virtual economies. So many people has joined these virtual economies such as second life and they enjoy it. People are actually spending many ours out of their daily lives to attend to these virtual economies. But these virtual economies aren't just games anymore, they are someone what looked at as "real Life." Virtual economies actually involves real money, and people tend to do exactly what they would do in their daily lives online. People buy houses as they would in real life. People go shopping, as they would in real life. People has jobs, families, food, and go have fun, as they would in real life. It then leaves the question, is virtual economies the new life? In my opinion, I would have to say yes and no. Yes because people are really spending their own money and actually making money back. People can actually build friendships and relationships. There was actually a case where two people from an economy actually got married in real life. But everything has its flaws. Although you can do similar things online as in real life, there are some exaggerations. In the real world a person with an average salary would not spend so much money on shopping and partying on a daily basis. Also people on virtual economies tend to do a lot of vicious things to others because they know they will not be punished for it as they would be in real life. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and I'm pretty sure a lot of people may argue that its real and other may say its just dumb and fake. But I just see it as people making time out of their day to live another life or in other words, a FAKE life.

Defining Open economy and Closed economy

An open economy is an economy in which people, including businesses, can trade in goods and services with other people and businesses in the international community at large. But a

closed economy cannot make international trades.

Open Economy

Entropia Universe is an online virtual universe designed by Swedish software company MindArk. It advertises a unique "Real Cash Economy (RCE)" in which Entropia Universe currency (PED - Project Entropia Dollars) can be redeemed back into real world funds at a fixed exchange rate with the U.S. dollar, where 10 PED = $1 U.S. dollar. This means that virtual items acquired inside Entropia Universe have a real cash value, and a participant may, at any time, withdraw their accumulated PEDs back into real world currencies according to the fixed exchange rate. The Entropia online community claims to have over 563000 registered participants from over 220 countries, with the average number of players online at any one time previously stated to be around 600 (as of August 2005). The community has produced several real world marriages as well as creating a multitude of cross-border friendships.
The Entropia Universe entered the Guinness World Book of Records in 2004 for the most expensive virtual item ever sold.

Closed economy

EverQuest II (commonly abbreviated as EQ2), based upon the popular EverQuest, is a fantasy massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG) developed by Sony Online Entertainment (SOE) . It features graphics and gameplay vastly updated from its predecessor as well as NPCs that use audio for speech. In the game, players explore a fantasy world of sword and sorcery, fighting monsters and enemies for treasure and experience points and interacting with other players. As they progress, players advance in level, gaining power, prestige and abilities. Players can also procure powerful items for their characters in a variety of ways: through slaying monsters (and then looting the remains), doing "quests" (tasks and adventures given by non-player characters ( NPCs) in which a reward is given upon success), or by gathering raw materials and then fashioning them, via numerous trade skills such as tailoring or blacksmithing, into useful (or not-so-useful, but nevertheless fun) items.

Differences and Similarities

With Entropia Universe, people are basically living a fake life. They go spend there money on business trades and other things. its mostly about spending money and living a daily life. But Everquest II, does not involve people spending their real money in a virtual game, it focuses more on people interacting and joining together to kill monsters and facing certain challenges with a one another, going from one quest to another.

Although there goals are different, both games help people interact with others and build friendships and sometimes close relationships. Another similarity is the labor hours involved. Both games involves people putting in a lot of hours to accomplish things. Both games also involves human activity and has its benefits.

Real money into virtual worlds

Although it may seem fun to spend use real money in virtual economies, it still has its flaws. People can lose their money very easy through virtual communities. Other players may cause you to lose your money so they can benefit from it. Also people may hack into your system and steal your money. Unlike the game monopoly, people would really get angry if they lost their money. This can also lead to an addiction. People may get very addicted and constantly put their own money into it hoping to receive more. It can turn into a gambling problem that is uncontrollable.

My Opinion

People are always saying that they wish they could change themselves or live another life. Virtual economies allows them to do that. It helps them live a life that they dream and hope for. But what people don't realize is that its just a dream, its not reality.

References-

Edward Castronova, Virtual Worlds, Virtual Economies, 1 May 2006

Business Weekly online, 6 April 2007, from

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_18/b3982010.htm

Entropia Universe, Wikipedia, the free Encyclopedia, 6 April 2007, from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropia_Universe

Everquest 2, Wikipedia, the free Encyclopedia, 6 April 2007, from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EverQuest_II

Real life, Wikipedia, the free Encyclopedia, 6 April 2007, from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_life

Virtual economies, Wikipedia, the free Encyclopedia, 6 April 2007, from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real-money_trading

Open and Closed Economy, Wikipedia, the free Encyclopedia, 6 April 2207, from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_economy

Life's a Game, News Feature, 4 January 2007

Nature publishing group, 6 April 2007, from

UBLearns

Current event

The event i chose to write about is the New York City subway hero ridiculous contract.

Daily News Newspaper Article
Subway hero Wesley Autrey stands by the spot where he jumped onto the tracks to rescue a man who fell onto them during a seizure in January.The subway superman now has his very own set of archenemies.Wesley Autrey is suing a lawyer and her Hollywood hotshot partner - accusing them of ripping him off before he's even made any money.

They persuaded the underground superhero to sign a deal giving them 50% of his earnings - far more than the standard 15% or 20% found in entertainment contracts.

They convinced Autrey he could capitalize on his selfless, death-defying act of heroism - leaping from a Harlem subway platform in January to save a stranger's life as a train rolled over both of them.

Now Autrey, 50, is trying to get out of the contract signed with former Queens prosecutor Diane Kleiman and deal maker Mark Anthony."We're trying to get him out of the water with the sharks," said his sister Linda Autrey.According to the lawsuit filed in Manhattan Supreme Court, Kleiman dropped in last month on a Waldorf-Astoria reception where Autrey was a guest of honor and offered free legal services to his family.Two days later, she brought in Anthony - who also goes by Marco Antonio - and talked up how his Hollywood contacts could get Autrey "a lot of money.

"Kleiman said Mark can make things happen, including a movie of [Autrey's] life," the lawsuit charged.The pair allegedly pressured Autrey into signing away 50% of his gross income, and even tried to demand travel expenses from New York magazine, which was profiling him and a Long Island elementary school where he was set to speak.The pair planned to pitch books and movies built around Autrey's life - with fictional tweaks to his life story that would turn him into a terrorism-fighting everyman. They also hoped to secure an endorsement deal with a cigar company."What he was getting was little piddly deals - a few hundred bucks here, a few hundred there," Kleiman said. "We wanted to sign him up for multimillion dollar deals.

"Kleiman and Anthony also pleaded with him to "act fast," the lawsuit charged, because a grand jury ruling in the police shooting of Sean Bell would quickly knock him from the headlines.But Kleiman - who filed a federal lawsuit after she was fired as a U.S. customs agent in 1999 - said Autrey is now trying to come off as a simpleton when he actually knew exactly what he was signing."They knew it was 50%," she said.The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages for Autrey and to have the contract voided.

Online Article

Wesley Autrey Sr. says in court papers he signed the contract Feb. 12 without reading it, agreeing that lawyer Diane L. Kleiman would represent and advise him in financial and other matters stemming from his subway heroism.

Autrey, a 50-year-old Bronx construction worker, says in court papers that the contract is "a one-sided agreement" he was induced to sign by "fraud" and that it gives the lion's share of everything he earns to Kleiman and her business partner, Marco Antonio Esposito, operator of an entertainment production company.

Autrey's lawsuit asks the court to declare the contract void. Kleiman, a former prosecutor, denied on Monday that she had cheated Autrey. She said Autrey and several family members read the contract after keeping it for several days.

"Somebody made him a better offer," Kleiman said, speculating on why Autrey wanted to get rid of her. "They (Autrey's family) are playing people off against each other.

"Autrey's lawsuit, filed Friday, says the contract gives Kleiman and Esposito exclusive rights to exploit his name and reputation and gives them ownership of intellectual property rights to his story. The contract also gives Kleiman and Esposito the right to receive all gross receipts from commercial exploitation of Autrey's name and to keep half those receipts, whether or not they helped generate the money, court papers say.

Autrey must give up his right to a trial by jury in any dispute with Kleiman and instead go to arbitration, in which he could be required to pay her legal fees, court papers say. Autrey grabbed public attention on Jan. 2, 2007, after Cameron Hollopeter, a 19-year-old student at the New York Film Academy, suffered a seizure and fell onto the subway tracks at the 137th Street/City College station. Standing on the subway platform with his two young daughters and scores of other commuters as a train approached, Autrey saw Hollopeter convulsing on the tracks. He jumped down and pulled the teen into the 12-inch-deep drainage trough between the tracks and lay on top of him as the train passed over their heads. The train grazed the top of Autrey's hat, and he and Hollopeter remained under a car for 20 minutes while MTA workers shut off the electrified third rail.

Different but also very Similar

Few differences are found between the online and print versions in terms of news supply. Reader attention to the news stories varies, depending on the newspaper and news category. No consistent reading pattern is evident and the print version readers do not read more than the online version readers. News Consumption seems to be more dependent on the news category, reader gender and interest in a particular topic than on whether the news appears in print or online. Finally, on the basis of cued and free recall questions, no consistent pattern differentiates readers of the print newspapers from the online versions.

Differences

There are several differences between these two articles. The title is the first difference. In the newspaper article the title of the story is "Subway Hero Needs Saving," and the title for the online article is "NYC Subway Hero Sues Lawyer Over 'Unfair Contract." As you can see, the newspaper chose to keep the title short, simple, unique, but still catches the readers eye. But the online article chose to explain what the article is through its title.Another difference is the photos. The newspaper chose to use a photo of the man in the exact subway station where he rescued the man. And the online article chose to just use a simple picture of the man.In the beginning of the newspaper article, they chose to first write about how this man rescued someone off of the train tracks. But online article went straight into the story and why he is suing. It is much easier to find an article online, because all you have to do is type in the subject. But in the newspapers, you must go through pages to find the article that you are looking for.

The printed version of a particular journal may differ in its content, appearance and presentation from its electronic ‘equivalent’.
Some articles may not be available online.
The electronic version may have added-value features such as links to extra related information or other articles.
Most electronic versions are presented in PDF (Portable Display Format) format, which requires the Adobe Acrobat Reader software to be installed on the computer. This enables the article to appear exactly the same as the printed version including pictures, graphs, figures, etc.
Some are also available in HTML format which appears as a normal web page. This has various advantages: extra links can be added to related material; it loads more quickly than Adobe; does not require Adobe to be installed.
Often the electronic version will be loaded and available before the printed version is received, either due to printing/postal delays or because articles are loaded as soon as they have been peer-reviewed and before ‘publication date’.

My Opionion

Yes, there many differences and similarities between print articles and online articles, but they are both very useful, and if you cant find information in one, then you can find it in the other.

References-

JoEy, Journals Electronically, 08 August 2006

Electronic Journal Frequently Asked Questions, 30 March 2007, from

http://www.inf.aber.ac.uk/elecinfo/ejournalfaq.asp

cbs5, NYC Subway Hero Sues Lawyer Over 'Unfair Contract', 27 March 2007

U.S. and World, 29 March 2007, from

http://cbs5.com/national/topstories_story_086095227.html

Leen d’Haenens , News in Online and Print Newspapers: Differences , 2004

Sage Journals Online, 29 March 2007, from

http://nms.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/6/3/363

Jose Martinez, Daily News Newspaper article. Tuesday March 27, 2007

Blogz on Politicianz

The blog I decided to choose, was the Politician blog on Hillary Rodham Clinton.

New York Times
The blogs is from the Caucus; political blogging from the New York times and the title is Clinton invokes 9/11 with firefighters. Hillary Clinton discuss ways that she will help firefighters whenever they were in need. She recalled Sept. 11 at length and the sacrifices and burdens of firefighters and first-responders that day and afterward – remarks that only made one wonder what kind of a speech Rudy Giuliani would have given if he had chosen to attend the conference. She also received a cheering standing ovation when she said, about politicians’ vows of support for firefighters, “It’s great for the photo ops but how about taking care of the people who have taken care” of the nation. Basically Hillary Clinton wanted all the firefighters to now that she will be their for them in the future if they elect her for upcoming presidency. This speech was a way for her to get all the firefighters vote for the election.

Blogger
The person who wrote this blog, was a writer for the New York Times named, Patrick Healy. The blog was posted March 14Th 2007, at 1:00 p.m. The blog was basically a good tone for Hillary Clinton. It shows how she is lending a helping hand to the future firefighters in need. This blog was both good and bad for Hillary Clinton. Even thought this blog has note been posted for a long period, there still have been many views from people just checking it out and finding out what the blog is about.

Negative comment on Blog
"I have no doubt that Clinton has what it takes to be president. She has been a politician most of her life for all practical purposes. I just don’t believe her on the issues because she won’t take a stand on any of them. I also resent her exploitation of the 9/11 tragedy to get VOTES. I must admit that she is no guiltier than any of the rest in exploiting the deaths, injuries and maiming of thousands of Americans on our own soil for political gain." This was a comment posted by a woman name Lisa, on March 14Th 2007, at 2:08 p.m.. She feels that Hillary Clinton is using the 9/11 tragedy to get votes and doesn't feel that it is acceptable. Even though the blog was discussing something good, there was still negative feedback from people. Even the good can still be looked at as a bad issue.

Positive comment on Blog
"Now that the fund is running out this year, she has asked for additional funds so that we can continue with the medical treatment of those affected by 9/11. Many people in NY (including me) have voted for her this past election because we have seen what a hard-worker she is in advocating for New York. Even many Republicans from upstate NY have voted for her. I think these firefighters have heard from NYC firefighters what a great leader she is." This was a site comment posted by a woman named Helen on March 14Th 2007, at 2:27 p.m. Unlike the first comment, this woman feels that Hillary Clinton's act and speech was great for New York City. She wants people to realize how good Hillary Clinton has been to the NYC, and hopefully others will realize when election time comes around.

Article
Rheingold argues that when people spread the idea that electronic networks are inherently democratic without specifying the hard work that must be done to harvest that democratising power, they can become unwitting agents of commodification. Habermas makes a distinction between the critical functions of communicative processes and functions that aim to influence the decision of consumers, voters and clients. The critical functions are self-regulated and inclusive, while those aiming to influence are implemented by organisations that aim to promote purchasing power, loyalty or conformist behaviour. These two functions compete with each other. The principle of publicity turns “against itself and thereby reduces its critical efficacy” (Habermas in Calhoun, 1993: 437). This was discussed in the article "Does the internet create Democracy?" by Alinta Thornton. In my opinion I have to agree and disagree with that question.

Yes internet does manipulate
The internet somewhat creates Democracy because there are so many articles and blogs that tries to either manipulate people into voting for a particular candidate. Certain blogs will discuss only good things about a politician and leave the bad issues out. The same thing happens with blogs that bad mouths politicians, so people wont vote for them. Some Americans spend half their day on the internet so they are easily manipulated by blogs and articles online.

No it doesn't
But some people could careless about articles on the internet. Many people may read a blog but pay no mind to it at all. They will go with there cut instinct on who they should vote for. And a lot of people will just look at articles and blogs on the internet just to see how everyone feels about the candidates or politicians. Bu in my honest opinion.

My Opinion
But in my honest opinion, I feel that the internet really does have a huge affect on certain peoples votes, because people are easily manipulated. Anything someone says then they feel that the person is either right or wrong. People don't dig deep anymore and find out the truth, they rather go with other people opinions. Just a bunch of COPYCATS.

Refrences-

Thornton, Alinta, Does Internet Create Democracy?, October 2007
M.A. Journalism Thesis, 25 March 2007, from
http://www.wr.com.au/democracy/index.html. Accessed 2001-10-01.

Healy, Patrick, Clinton invokes 9/11 with firefighters, 14 March 2007
New York Times, The Caucus, 25 March 2007, from
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/03/14/clinton-invokes-911-with-firefighters/

My Online Community

Community-

In my Communication 125 intro to internet class, My professor Derek Lackaff defines community as a social institution, comprised of people who identify as a group.

Virtual/Online Community-

Wikipedia defines a virtual community or online community as a group of people that may or may not primarily or initially communicate or interact via the Internet. Online communities have also become a supplemental form of communication between people who know each other in real life. The dawn of the "information age" found groups communicating electronically rather than face to face.

There are millions of communities from offline to online. I am currently in so many different communities, but the online community that i like the most, has to be MySpace.

Myspace-

MySpace is a social networking website offering an interactive, user-submitted network of friends, personal profiles, blogs, groups, photos, music and videos. MySpace also features an internal search engine and an internal e-mail system. Created in 2003, MySpace is currently the world's sixth most popular English-language website, and the third most popular website in the United States. In my opinion, MySpace is definitely one of the largest online communities.

MySpace can be used for numerous reasons. MySpace can help you stay in touch with your relatives and can help you reunite with old high school or college friends by just typing in their full name. MySpace consist of emails and instant messages so you can communicate with others. It also has blogs, where people can post whatever they would like or whatever that's on their mind and have their friends look at it and comment on it. Forums is another huge thing on MySpace. There are so many different forums on so many different topics, so anyone can just go check for a forum they like and go chat about it with other people. Ever since MySpace has been created, it has been known as the site where anyone anywhere can communicate and interact with other people, whether you know them or not. I actually use MySpace almost every single day.

Negatives and some Positives-

But even though there are so many different ways to communicate with others on MySpace, it still has it negatives. So many people have MySpace and anyone can lie about how they look or who they are. Its so easy to put fake pictures up and people can act a certain way online but in person, their character is totally different. Some people say that online communities can also be very difficult to build social ties (relationship) with others. Not seeing the other person face to face can make it very difficult to build a friendship. All people do is type back and forth. They don't meet each other for lunch or see each other during the day. The only time they can communicate is when they are both online. You cannot see the other persons facial expressions, or hear their voice. You can only see letters and words that they are typing to you. how can this be a real community without having a real social relationship with others?

I don't like to discuss my social life to everyone but i slightly disagree with the Non-building of social ties through online communities. I have actually made some close friends on MySpace; all of them are women. It is so much easier to speak to a person online rather than face to face. We would chat for a while and really get to know each other better. Then when we both feel comfortable, we would exchange cell numbers. Then we would set up a date to meet for lunch or dinner. I have met a lot of women online and i have a variety of relationship ties with them. In some ways social ties can be difficult to build with someone online, but in other ways if you feel comfortable with the person and have a lot of conversations with them, then a close a relationship can be made.

Similarities and Differences-

My online communities are similar and also different to my offline communities. It is easy to have a conversation, play games, meet different people and learn different things on bother my online and offline communities. But a big difference between the two can be first impression. You actually see the person face to face on offline communities rather than online. Offline communities also allows you to build social ties much faster than online. But it is easier to discuss private things online rather than actually telling a person face to face on your offline community.

Whether it is an Offline or Online community, it is still looked at as a community; a group of people who has something in common and enjoy the community that they are in. If they didn't enjoy it, then they wouldn't be in it.

References-

Virtual community/Online community, from Wikipedia, the free Encyclopedia, 20 March 2007, from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_community

Myspace, from Wikipedia, the free Encyclopedia, 23 February 2007, from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MySpace

Community, University at Buffalo class- Comm 125UB, 19 March 2007

Professor Derek Lackaff, 20 March 2007, from

Gotta be in the 9AM class ;-)