Wednesday, March 3, 2010
ETHICS... oh boy
So in my uneducated opinion I feel that Plagiarism is like stealing.... and stealing is very bad! Obviously plagiarizing has some major ethical issues in terms of stealing ideas but I think that on a personal level for the plagiarizer it is much more harmful! First of all he/she does by plagiarizing is simply take the easy way out. With things like "copy and paste" the plagiarizer does not really gain anything of real value for themselves, yes maybe a A in the class if he/she is a student but one day their lack of knowledge they would have gained other wise will come to bite them in the butt. Also I think that is has it moral consequences, the more and more a society leans toward dishonesty in any area of life... its like a plague that spreads through out every aspect of life. I think we should all try our best not to plagiarize by simply putting a little more effort in what we do to gain a much greater reward.
Ethics
The point of research is to find the truth. Without ethics research and writing could be very dangerous. When writing and researching one should be ethical just as they would when giving a speech. No one would want to get up and tell lies to an audience. At least those who were honest would not do so. It is the same with writing. Even if the audiece cannot be seen and does not seem very real there is indeed an audience who will read the material. It seems so obvious, yet I think it is easy for people to write and forget that writing is not just a personal matter.
We are responsible to give people credit for what we have used. It just makes sense that people should be given credit for the work they spent such time and effort on. Also giving credit to our sources gives us as the writer more credit. Who wants to read a research paper that does not have reliable information to back it up?
We owe it to our readers to give them the access to more information on the research topic. Also they simply just deserve to know the truth. We must avoid plagarism because if we do not then it will create confusion and hurt our ethos. Once again plagarism is just simply dishonest and when we write we need to be sure to distinguish what comes from us and from others.
We are responsible to give people credit for what we have used. It just makes sense that people should be given credit for the work they spent such time and effort on. Also giving credit to our sources gives us as the writer more credit. Who wants to read a research paper that does not have reliable information to back it up?
We owe it to our readers to give them the access to more information on the research topic. Also they simply just deserve to know the truth. We must avoid plagarism because if we do not then it will create confusion and hurt our ethos. Once again plagarism is just simply dishonest and when we write we need to be sure to distinguish what comes from us and from others.
Ethics Dilemma
The issue with ethics and writing is an old one, one that spans many eons of time. To me however, the dilemma has modernized thanks to new media and the influences of the modern society. Ethics and writing has become a battlefield where writers of all mediums come to ensue battle about things like using rhetoric to subliminally mask meanings or being too biased in coverage of topics and providing information. Our responsibilities as writers are to inform the intended audience about our point, try to persuade them to believe what we believe (or at least change their outlook) and try to get the audience engaged or interested in our writing. We may show bias, but do so creatively; we may use rhetoric and use it sneakily, but we must do it well.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Is Fox News spawn of Satan?
At the beginning of the class, I expressed my distate for Pathos. I feel uncomfortable employing emotions to change people. Maybe it's my my rugged manliness that causes the conflict. As Oscar Wilde said, "A sentimentalist is one who desires to have the luxury of an emotion without paying for it." I will eventually need to overcome the restrictions of my sex and sap up my writing if I want to be truly successful.
But my discomfort raises a question: is it ethical to manipulate people through powerful writing, emotion aside? Just like Jedi Mind Tricks, writing can have a powerful effect on the weak minded; it has the potential to raise mobs. Also, there are scores of people out there who will defend a position that they've read about just because they've read about it. I was one of them. My 8th grade year, after reading Atlas Shrugged, I was an avid Objectionist. However after further research and study, I find many aspects of that philosophy ridiculous. It is unethical only to present one side of an argument?
No. It's not.
And even if it was unethical, there's no way to prevent manipulation. Bias is inherent. It's unethical for you as a reader to only read one side of the argument.
But my discomfort raises a question: is it ethical to manipulate people through powerful writing, emotion aside? Just like Jedi Mind Tricks, writing can have a powerful effect on the weak minded; it has the potential to raise mobs. Also, there are scores of people out there who will defend a position that they've read about just because they've read about it. I was one of them. My 8th grade year, after reading Atlas Shrugged, I was an avid Objectionist. However after further research and study, I find many aspects of that philosophy ridiculous. It is unethical only to present one side of an argument?
No. It's not.
And even if it was unethical, there's no way to prevent manipulation. Bias is inherent. It's unethical for you as a reader to only read one side of the argument.
Christmas is in 298 days!
As a history teaching major, I have realized that we owe everything that we know about the past to historians that have come before. When writing a scholarly paper, historians compile something called a historiography. A historiography is a summary of what past scholars have said about a certain topic. This shows that as historians, we respect the opinions and insights that others have been able to give and we build on what they have said before, adding our own insights and personal views. This is just one example of how important it is to give credit to those that have done significant work before us. This is why plagiarism is such an issue. By taking someone else’s work and calling it your own, you are taking away all the credit that they should be getting for countless hours of work. As writers, we have a responsibility to report our opinions and as much of the truth as we know. Whatever we write should be either our own thoughts or the thoughts of others, with proper citation.
Ethical Writing
Basically the ethics of writing is telling the truth and nothing but the truth in all that you do, or write. Do not change something so that it benefits you. That also goes for when you are researching. When you use someon else's research you need to site it, let others know that you were not the one who came up with that or discovered that, you need to give credit to others. We need to be fair to those that did do the work and got the information and to do that we need to cite where we got it and either quote is exactly or use our own words completly while still citing where you got that information. This also helps the readers, it shows the reader that you are using reliable sources and just not making it up. Here at BYU plagiarism is against the honor code, but it is still completely wrong no matter where you are or what school you go to. It is lying, you are taking someone's credit that you do not deserve. You are also not doing or showing your own work.
Ethics of Writing
The entire point of writing is in the fact that it is meant to be read. As such, the writer's duty to the reader is integral. Coherency in grammar and sentence structure is a must, as is presentation - the proof that one's writing contains proper evidence and is well researched. This does not apply to only essay writing; even in works of fiction, one does not want to read about an act or profession that the writer actually has no experience in. For example, Hemingway's A Farewell to Arms draws credibility from the fact that its author served in the military himself, and could be taken seriously. Those who have set the groundwork before the writer should have homage made to them - in some cases, it would be plagiarism not to, depending on the amount of impact made in their field. Of course, plagiarism itself is frowned upon by the writing community - when writing, one is presenting a personal voice and idea; some say that everything that is written should be able to bring some new idea to the table, no matter how small or subtle. Plagiarism not only steals another person's words, but also their persona and their thoughts. Applied to the physical world, such an act would be called "body-snatching". This would also be frowned upon by society.
To write or not to write...
I think one of the biggest problems with writing and research is plagiarism. Not properly crediting someone for their work is unfair to them. They deserve the reward for their hard work. You wouldn't take credit from someone who scored the game winning shot in a basketball game and you shouldn't take credit from someone who said something you liked. It is the writers responsibility to their audience to tell the truth and to give them correct information. Yes you can lie and bend facts but what good does that do overall? That doesn't help anyone! Just like how we have the Honor Code (and there was a good article in the Daily Universe about that today) and it's up to us to follow it with exactness. We could easily cut corners but in the end that doesn't help anyone. Like Thumper said to Bambi "If you can't say anything nice(or correct), don't say nothing at all" :)
Opinionated Evaluation
I am giving a disclaimer prior to posting this. THIS IS MY OPINION. Okay, you have been warned.
Each source has credible information, yet each site focuses on a different way of getting information out. I believe that Google News cannot quite reach the news prowess that CNN has achieved. CNN's website is strictly devoted to relaying information about news all around the world from their correspondents and their informants while Google simply compiles thousands of different sources into one place. That may seem nice, but I find it annoying to have to sift through tons of new stories that I feel do not adequately fit my news junkie needs.
Ethics
The ethics of writing and research stem from two things (I believe): no plagiarism, and always telling the absolute truth. Especially with a research paper, I really don't think it is fair to say you are giving hard cold facts when really you are just spouting off what you want in order to get the effect/affect (I forget which one) you want. We have a responsibility to our readers to provide research that was fairly attained and correctly interpreted.
We are to avoid plagiarism because of three things (I believe): (because if plagiarize) We are cheeting the public, we are cheeting the original writer, and we are cheeting ourselves. How can we grow and understand if we don't actually process our own unique way of seeing things? We can add to the knowledge of our world just by putting in our own input and seeing in a different way--in our own different way.
It's interesting that we're talking about this in class, because this topic just came up in my Women's Studies class. We were viewing pictures of pretty recent magazine covers that had images of celebrities with fake bodies. It was interesting to discuss how damaging the pictures could be to the public. Our perception of what is "real beauty" is not even close to being "real"!!
We are to avoid plagiarism because of three things (I believe): (because if plagiarize) We are cheeting the public, we are cheeting the original writer, and we are cheeting ourselves. How can we grow and understand if we don't actually process our own unique way of seeing things? We can add to the knowledge of our world just by putting in our own input and seeing in a different way--in our own different way.
It's interesting that we're talking about this in class, because this topic just came up in my Women's Studies class. We were viewing pictures of pretty recent magazine covers that had images of celebrities with fake bodies. It was interesting to discuss how damaging the pictures could be to the public. Our perception of what is "real beauty" is not even close to being "real"!!
Monday, March 1, 2010
Foreman give Cameron her credit please...
I would have to say that writing and research ethics are similar if you are doing a research paper. You should have respect for the people who gave you the research you needed for your paper and credit them. You wouldn't want someone else to steal your ideas and call them their own. So you shouldn't do it to them. On an episode of House M.D., Foreman stole Cameron's ideas and used it to write his own article. She was very ticked. It was unprofessional. You should also credit those who gave you the ideas or background research. If he was going to use her ideas, he could have at least accredited her. The responsibility to the readers is to be as knowledgeable on the subject as possible. As well as make the reading enjoyable, not writing a stiff boring piece. It would lack interest and no one will read it. Avoiding plagiarism is extremely important because you could be sued or kicked out of BYU.
I have horrible titles for these blogs....
Plagerism is simply the stealing of ideas. And stealing is wrong. What happened to "Thou shalt not steal"? Plagerism is huge. Especially on the internet because it is so easy to simply copy and paste something from a webpage onto a word document and call it yours. We have to site our sources to clear all doubt that this was not your idea and that you are not taking it from someone else. If nothing was ever sited we would never know what was credible information and what wasn't. Siting sources allows the credit to go to those who deserve it (or those who shouldn't deserve credibility for stupid ideas) and builds their credibility and their authority (or decreases). Avoiding plagerisms keeps the writen world in order. There are laws for a reason. They keep order and stability and in the end laws make us free when they are obeyed.
World of Warcraft... crack in CD-ROM form
Bad Site (but funny): http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=world+of+warcraft
Good Site: http://www.thelocal.se/17840/20090226/
Well the good site on World of Warcraft is credible because its comes from a official news site from Europe and as I searched their site I was able to find that it has been updated and the copy write was resent which is what the Library tutorial told me to do. But as for the bad site, Urban Dictionary, although very funny (warning some definitions are sometimes crude, so avoid those) this is a very unreliable source because it anyone can post what they think about the topic. Its like Wikipedia on its WORST day.
On knowing Were to Look
when looking for articles related to technology I will compare two websites
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/01/technology/01soft.html?ref=technology
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/
the first is the new york times and the second is a website called roughly drafted. roughly drafted in basically a blog type website whose very purpose is to worship all things apple. now i will admit i like apple products, but roughly drafted takes it to the extremes. the goal in not to provide an analysis of apple but rather to glorify everything they do. any competing product on the market is instantly considered to be marketed by satan and have 666 on the back. Daniel Dilger, the one running the website, has never made any concessions even when his hyberbolic predictions turn out to be false. this leads me to doubt his ability to look an idea from both sides. Even though many websites pick one side of an issue or another, they still must present a broad perspective. although the website does have some good points, the lack of objectivity printed makes it a rather unreliable source for research. contrast this to the new york times, a very reputable source who provides a generally unbiased point of view when it comes to technology.
Credible?
Credible vs. Not Credible
The first site is credible because it comes from an Institute and is being kept current. This shows that someone is keeping up the site. Also just the overall appearance of the site looks professional. On the site there are links to government websites which gives it more credible support. The second website, the famous Wikipedia, may appear to be credible yet it is something that is on the borderline because people can edit it themselves and so information may not be very accurate.
The first site is credible because it comes from an Institute and is being kept current. This shows that someone is keeping up the site. Also just the overall appearance of the site looks professional. On the site there are links to government websites which gives it more credible support. The second website, the famous Wikipedia, may appear to be credible yet it is something that is on the borderline because people can edit it themselves and so information may not be very accurate.
Health Care
The credible
The not so credible
The New York Times website has credibility for several reasons: their reputation, the look at both sides of the issue, and the amount of information they give. On that one website there are links to numerous articles (pro and con) that speak about health care reform. The ones that I looked at did their best to be journalistic and unbiased. Glenn Beck's website on the other hand would not be a credible source. This is because the absolute bias he has. While taking a side is important (as is sticking to your beliefs) but I feel that portraying your opponents as if they never had a rational thought is destructive to your cause. To me, Glenn Beck's use of pathos is very manipulative and falls under the fallacies of poisoning the well and appealing to emotion.
The not so credible
The New York Times website has credibility for several reasons: their reputation, the look at both sides of the issue, and the amount of information they give. On that one website there are links to numerous articles (pro and con) that speak about health care reform. The ones that I looked at did their best to be journalistic and unbiased. Glenn Beck's website on the other hand would not be a credible source. This is because the absolute bias he has. While taking a side is important (as is sticking to your beliefs) but I feel that portraying your opponents as if they never had a rational thought is destructive to your cause. To me, Glenn Beck's use of pathos is very manipulative and falls under the fallacies of poisoning the well and appealing to emotion.
The Two
The bad-http://www.turnoffyourtv.com/healtheducation/violencechildren/violencechildren.html
The good- http://allpsych.com/journal/violentmedia.html
The first website is not an official site. It looks like someone just put it together for their own benefit and just basicilly doesn't look official. All though it looks like there is alot of information there are no references at the end. Some of the information the author has is from later, like 1993 making it not so credible. The second article is a journal. The website looks official, organized, and there are no advertisements on it. There are also references at the end making it credible. The author was also identified and the date that it was published which helps on deturming its currency.
The good- http://allpsych.com/journal/violentmedia.html
The first website is not an official site. It looks like someone just put it together for their own benefit and just basicilly doesn't look official. All though it looks like there is alot of information there are no references at the end. Some of the information the author has is from later, like 1993 making it not so credible. The second article is a journal. The website looks official, organized, and there are no advertisements on it. There are also references at the end making it credible. The author was also identified and the date that it was published which helps on deturming its currency.
Male Pregnancies...',:-/ <- that's a man raising an eyebrow
Non Credible Source
http://www.malepregnancy.com/Credible Source
I asked my roommate for a random topic to find a credible and a non credible source for and she suggested male pregnancies. I gave her a funny look and she was like it up on Google and the first website up is the top website. And at first glance it looks legit. They provide stats, photos, facts, the webpage looks like it is from a real hospitals website. but if you look closer you notice that a lot of it leads to his "online journal" which just says he will be back online shortly. It's very convincing at first but has been proven it's a hoax and once you know that it's easy to notice why. And the other website is credible because it comes from a reliabe source, ABC. The facts are straight and they prove that a "man" is not pregnant, but a "transgender" is pregnant.
And the Ugly
Good: http://www.kff.org/entmedia/upload/7427.pdf
Bad: http://parenting.families.com/blog/category/169
My topic is educational media, and whether parents should heavily rely on it to teach their toddlers. The first example is a good one - the website seems professional, apparently made by an organisation, so the credibility is there. The information is gathered into a neat report, which would make finding certain aspects of my topic easier. The second example, however, is not quite as up to par as the first. While also dealing with toddlers and media parenting, this website is a public one, in which any person can sign up and post. Therefore, the information lacks sufficient credibility. Also, the layout of the website is a bit harder to handle than that of the aforementioned report - the topics tend to jump around more.
Bad: http://parenting.families.com/blog/category/169
My topic is educational media, and whether parents should heavily rely on it to teach their toddlers. The first example is a good one - the website seems professional, apparently made by an organisation, so the credibility is there. The information is gathered into a neat report, which would make finding certain aspects of my topic easier. The second example, however, is not quite as up to par as the first. While also dealing with toddlers and media parenting, this website is a public one, in which any person can sign up and post. Therefore, the information lacks sufficient credibility. Also, the layout of the website is a bit harder to handle than that of the aforementioned report - the topics tend to jump around more.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
useful..
"bad" site: http://www.stxmomsblog.blogspot.com/
"good" site: http://www.sdo.nihr.ac.uk/files/project/78-final-report.pdf
In truth, I don't think either site is better than the other, they just serve different purposes. And since the assignment was to find credible and non-credible sources for writing a paper, I chose one site that would be perfect for research information, and one site that wouldn't.. so much. The first site is a blog, of someone I know actually, and it is kind of like a campaign for midwives and homebirths.. all natural with herbs sort of thing. The blog is set up quite nicely and very organized, but it is filled with personal stories, opinions, and specific personal experiences--not and ideal source to write a detailed argument-based research paper with hard facts to support your claim. The second source is very organized with research, experiment analysis', graphs, footnotes, and other useful things. It's full of information that can be helpful in forming your own unique argument and using hard facts for support.
"good" site: http://www.sdo.nihr.ac.uk/files/project/78-final-report.pdf
In truth, I don't think either site is better than the other, they just serve different purposes. And since the assignment was to find credible and non-credible sources for writing a paper, I chose one site that would be perfect for research information, and one site that wouldn't.. so much. The first site is a blog, of someone I know actually, and it is kind of like a campaign for midwives and homebirths.. all natural with herbs sort of thing. The blog is set up quite nicely and very organized, but it is filled with personal stories, opinions, and specific personal experiences--not and ideal source to write a detailed argument-based research paper with hard facts to support your claim. The second source is very organized with research, experiment analysis', graphs, footnotes, and other useful things. It's full of information that can be helpful in forming your own unique argument and using hard facts for support.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)