Overview

The article From Encyclopedia Britannica to Wikipedia, written by Andrew J. Flanagin and Miriam J. Metzger, focuses on how Wikipedia is perceived by users 11 and older. They conducted a survey for a group of 11-18 year old children who live at home and then 18 and older people who do not live with their parents. Flanagin and Metzger learned that while people thought that Wikipedia was credible, they still should not use it a source if they are trying to prove a point or write a paper because others do not believe in its credibility. They also learned that even if Wikipedia has the exact same information as Encyclopedia Britannica, they are more inclined to believe the information in the encyclopedia than in Wikipedia.

Why I Chose this Article?

I actually created a Wikipedia page when I was an undergraduate student for one of my religion courses. The goal was two-fold: create a page that told the truth about a woman in the Bible, and to get that page to be permanently on Wikipedia. The latter was way more difficult to do than the former. I never realized what you had to do to make sure the page was approved. Everything had to be cited by a reputable source. It had to be detailed and clear; no academic jargon was allowed. My project along with one other groups were the only ones to be accepted. In other words, there is a lot more to putting information on a Wikipedia page than just making an account and typing it. There is even a waiting period for it to be reviewed before publishing.

The Argument

My argument is that Wikipedia is a reliable, credible source that should be taken seriously. The information that is placed on these pages are vetted carefully. The requirements used forces the articles and pages to be as truthful and detailed as possible. Even when things do slip through the cracks, it does not take long before it is caught and corrected by another user or by Wikipedia itself.

Support

In an article written in 2015, it talked about how Wikipedia handles information related to science. “A 2005 study in the journal Nature found that the information provided on Wikipedia is almost as reliable as that of the benchmark, Encyclopedia Britannica. A 2011 study found that Wiki articles were on a par with professionally edited databases for health-care professionals” (Washington Post). Basically, Wikipedia is just as useful as other sources that people rely on regularly to gain information about medical areas.

Against

To go against my argument, I chose a university site. On the site it states that Wikipedia should not be used as a source: “No, because even though Wikipedia is one of the Webs most popular reference sites, it isn’t a credible resource because anyone is allowed to be a contributor to the website” (Connor State). Most academic settings argue against Wikipedia like their lives depended on it. I sometimes think they have a vendetta against the site. It is accurate, however, in stating that anyone can contribute to the articles on Wikipedia.

Conclusion

It is only fitting to conclude this with a statement from Wikipedia, itself. “Articles are only as good as the editors who have been editing them—their interests, education and background—and the efforts they have put into a particular topic or article. Since we try to avoid original research, a particular article may only be as good as (a) the available and discovered reliable sources, and (b) the subject matter may allow” (Wikipedia). This is the truest statement about Wikipedia that I have seen. Why? Because just like any other article published, even in a very academic, credible source, the article is still only as good as the writers and editors that have touched it. The articles are fallible because the authors are fallible. Nothing can be 100% true all the time, but it doesn’t hurt to have a good, simple source like Wikipedia to rely on.

Overview

In this article, written by Amy Wang for The Washington Post, a lawyer rewrites Instagram’s “Terms and Conditions” so that children can understand what they are agreeing to. There are a lot of kids on that app, some even younger than 13, which is the age limit to create a profile on the app. Once the lawyer rewrote the terms and provided a copy to the kids in the study, there opinions completely changed. It made more sense, they knew what they were agreeing to, and some kids decided that they didn’t like what they read and wanted to delete their profiles. These kids did not know what they signed up until it was explained to them in words that they could understand. These “Terms and Conditions” are provided to save the company from legal issues; they do not really care if the users understand them or not as long as the company is protected.

Why I Chose this Article?

I’ll be honest. I chose this article because I felt “called out.” In the wonderful 10 years I have had free reign of the internet, meaning my parents didn’t watch every move I made, I can genuinely say I have never read a “Terms and Conditions” agreement on anything I have signed up for. This is not a proud moment for me, but it brings realization to me. Of course, I, along with millions of others, am not going to read something that small and that long. I don’t care; I want to play the game or scroll through pictures, or whatever it is that is “in” right now.

Another reason that I don’t do it is because I don’t understand half the things they say. It’s like reading Moby Dick or sitting in a lecture with an 80 year old monotonous man teaching. Why try when you know its a waste? So, this article made me think: Hey! I can understand it if it is in layman’s terms. I don’t have to try then; it’ll be short, sweet, and to the point.

The Argument

My argument for this round is: Yes, I suppose that more people would read the “Terms and Conditions” if it was understandable, but that they are so used to just ignoring and agreeing that it might be difficult to get them into the habit of doing so. I think that they will become more informed about the products they are using if they are capable of understanding what the product represents and does.

Support

Since the dawn of technology, more or less, companies have been doling out their legal information to cover their company from lawsuits and things. It was annoying then, and it’s annoying now. Practically no one unless they are lawyers are reading these things. “A Deloitte survey of 2,000 consumers in the U.S found that 91% of people consent to legal terms and services conditions without reading them. For younger people, ages 18-34 the rate is even higher with 97% agreeing to conditions before reading”(Cakebread, Business Insider). Meaning, even if the terms and conditions came in an easy-to-read notification, people are not going to to take the time to read it.

But unfortunately, it is still long and “unnecessary.” (By unnecessary, I mean that people don’t read them so what’s the actual point?) “A recent study [mentioned in Ars Technica] concludes what everybody already knows: nobody reads the lengthy terms of service and privacy policies that bombard Internet users every day. Nobody understands them. They’re too long, and they often don’t make sense” (Kravets).

Against

Perhaps, if the “Terms and Conditions” were understandable, people would be more aware of the things they agree to and thus, be more concerned about the items they are using. A study was conducted at the York University in Toronto and the University of Connecticut. The Guardian wrote an article about the results stating: “‘By clicking Join,’ they read, ‘you agree to abide by our terms of service.’ Hundreds of college students tapped the big green “Join” button to become members of NameDrop, a new social network. But according to paragraph 2.3.1 of the terms of service, they’d agreed to give NameDrop their future first-born children” (Barreby). Giving up your first-born could be an eye opener. Some may still not care– college kids, you never know what to expect. So, maybe, if it becomes understandable, they will take the time to read it. People could develop a habit of reading them, but I think they need to have an “eye-opening” moment for that to happen.

Conclusion

My conclusion is simplified in an article found on Business Insider: “Of course, consumers don’t have much of a choice. If they don’t agree, they don’t get access to the wireless network, new app or whatever it is they want to use — and there’s nothing they can about it” (Cakebread). Regardless of whether you read the terms or not, and regardless of whether you agree or not, in order to use the product, they have to accept it. There is just no way around it. However, I think that it would be better for the individual users to be able to have access to the terms and also be able to understand them.

Overview

Judge Westmore makes the ruling that law enforcement should not be able to unlock a person’s phone with their face or fingerprint because it against their rights as a citizen. She furthers the situation by saying their was no specific focus of the search but rather it was broad concerning both the person and the device. Meaning they didn’t want to search just one person and one phone, but everyone’s in the room.

She believes that they have no right to do it because that is their new security system. They can’t force a passcode out of someone’s mouth so they should not be able to use someone’s body against their will either.

Why I Chose this Article?

Since I was young, I have always been fascinated by the legal system. It seems to move slower than anything else in this world because most people don’t want to touch it with a 12 foot pole. They want to believe that our forefathers covers the basis. The problem is that our world is nothing like theirs. We have changed in every possible way at this point, so the law has to catch up some time. With my legal background, I know just how long it takes to catch up so I was greatly intrigued by Judge Westmore’s ruling and her viewpoint on why her ruling was justified.

The Argument

My argument is this: Is it right for law enforcement to use your personal information against you? You re told you have the right to remain silent, yet your personal phone is all access?

Support

Fourth and Fifth Amendment! Honestly, if you know your rights, I shouldn’t have to explain anymore. You have the right to your privacy and you have a right to a fair trial. Meaning, your personal information, that you technically did not give permission to being searched, should not be permissible in court. Not only that, but law enforcement should not be allowed to even search through it.

“If a person cannot be compelled to provide a passcode because it is a testimonial communication, a person cannot be compelled to provide one’s finger, thumb, iris, face, or other biometric feature to unlock that same device,” [Westmore] wrote (PC Mag). Providing a passcode to law enforcement means willingly providing information that could help incriminate you– because of that, most people will not provide their passcode. You can’t really hide your face or lose your fingerprint, but that still does not mean that it should be used against you.

Against

It is next to impossible to find anything revolving why this ruling is a bad thing. It protects civil liberties and helps guarantee your fourth and fifth amendment rights! HOWEVER, there is one significant thing that no website/article I could find focuses on: is it life or death? Now imagine with me… you are a police officer who is searching for a seven year old girl. The abductors have given you 48 hours and you have used up 42 of them. You get a lead. You learn that the guy you have in custody has the location you need on his phone. Due to this Northern California ruling by Judge Westmore, you can’t get access to this guy’s phone. You are at a dead end and so is that little girl. You could have saved her life if you were just able to hold that phone up to his face.

Conclusion

Judge Westmore cited Carpenter in concluding that “technology is outpacing the law” (PC Mag). Technology will always outpace everything because it is the primary focus of everyone. The best anyone can do is try to keep up. Therefore, I believe that Westmore was fair in making her ruling. I’m reminded of the feminist saying, “My body, my choice.” It seems to apply well to this situation, as well. Law enforcement should not be allowed to use someone’s body against themselves.

Overview

You know how we can go to Starbucks and drink coffee while surfing the web because they offer wi-fi? Or maybe how you can go to the library and google absolutely anything because there is internet access available to you for free? Germany doesn’t have that. No, free access is basically a lawsuit waiting to happen. You see, based on the article “Why is it impossible to find free wi-fi in Germany?” by Grace Dobush, the threat of Storerhaftung overpowers the need for wi-fi. If someone offers free wi-fi, they are subjected to the lawsuits if the user abuses the freedom.

Why I Chose this Article?

I chose this article based solely on personal experience. My first time ever going out of the country and I travel to Germany and Austria. Let me tell you, it was a cultural shock to find out I didn’t have wi-fi… anywhere. I was so glad I opted for the international plan on my phone or I may have gone insane– I was across the ocean, in a new country, traveling for the first time… and I had no family. I don’t have to explain why that is terrifying. But because I had the international plan, I was able to Facetime my family whenever I wanted. If I had relied on wi-fi, I wouldn’t have any access.

The Argument

My argument, based on this article, is simple: Germany should allow locations to have free wi-fi for people to use for whatever purpose without there being legality issues. It is just wrong for 1. a person to be subjected to a lawsuit for someone else’s choices and 2. a person to not be able to use free wi-fi in a country that is advanced in practically every area.

Support

Not long after this article was published, the German Parliament passed a new law changing the way the secondary liability worked. “In particular, operators of Wi-Fi networks shall not be liable for copyright infringements committed by the relevant Wi-Fi networks’ users, providing that:

• The network operator has not caused the relevant transmission;
• The network operator has not chosen the recipient of the transmitted information
• The network operator has not chosen or changed the transmitted information” (Hardinghaus).

In other words, the secondary liability only falls on the person IF they have been involved in the transmission. This is a crucial change that helps supports my argument. The network owner should not have liability (my argument); this lessens the liability. However, it is something that I agree with. The owner should be liable if they were involved!

Against

I have a hard time finding any reasonable argument against the free wi-fi idea. The only real justification is the protection of the copyrights people are trying to steal. I mean, it protects companies, creators, etc. from losing out on some money (Claggett). The companies work hard on their creations and deserve to get the income from it.

Conclusion

My argument is the argument of the majority: provide the free wi-fi and get rid of the secondary liability. This argument was heard by the parliament, and the courts changed it as of 2018 (DW). The companies that offer hotspots are now free from possible prosecution! In reality, the pros outweigh the cons in this situation. Too many people can benefit from free wi-fi; the companies are still making money and are not affected as significantly as one would think.

Overview

I know you read my title… confused, aren’t you? How can a bra fight back? Yes, the bra a woman wears as an undergarment. Can it fight back? Well, based on the technology created by Manisha Mohan, Niladhri Basu Bal, and Rimpi Tripathi, yes, a bra can indeed fight back. In the 2013 article written by Fiona Graham, “Wearable Technology: The bra designed to shock attackers” (https://www.bbc.com/news/business-22110443), technology is being created to help people; the catch is that the technology is in the clothes! How cool is that?!

Why I Chose this Article?

Well, the primary reason is that the title immediately caught my attention. I mean, who isn’t intrigued by a, quite literally, shocking bra! It made me curious as to what is really happening in the article and just what sparked this ingenious idea. Come to find out, it was due to a gang rape which unfortunately, makes a lot of sense. It would take a terrifying event to create such an extreme counterattack. Though, I believe extreme my be taken too literally, I simply mean “extreme” as in something more than a sharp key or maybe a keychain bottle of mace (something that almost every girl gets when she hits puberty).

The Argument

In the article, it gives more than just the bra as examples of wearable technology; it includes a music-making jacket, the Flutter, which helps the hearing impaired, and Bluetooth integrated clothes which includes GPS. These examples show how technology can be intertwined with even the most basic, essential things. I mean, who doesn’t wear clothes on at least a semi-daily basis? By placing technology in clothes, it creates an almost guaranteed type of security and provides at least a little bit more freedom than just choosing what shoes should go with what top. In other words, my argument is technology integration with apparel is an EXCELLENT idea. If you get attacked and the person takes your phone and loose items away immediately, you are only left with your clothing. That bra could save your life. That Bluetooth shirt can give your last known location to the cops.

Support

For many people, the idea of wearable technology is a great idea. Most of the articles on the internet mention something similar to this: “The healthcare industry benefits from garments with biometric measurements to gain real-time data regarding the health of some of the more vulnerable among us, like post-op patients, expectant mothers, senior citizens, or diabetics” (https://gritdaily.com/smart-clothing-e-textiles/). Real-time data is a legitimate life-saver for many people– it is similar to being able to tell the doctor what your blood type is when you are being rushed into the emergency room. This data can help someone from being in a diabetic coma or from a pregnant mother losing her baby.

Other health benefits often mentioned Under Armour, a company that creates many athletic styled clothes. In a few articles, “athlete recovery” is mentioned as a benefit for wearable technology. “Athlete Recovery is Under Armour’s range of clothes that absorb heat from the human body and reflects it back onto the wearer’s skin as Far Infrared light, which safe energy that is said to encourage better muscle recovery and enhance relaxation” (https://www.lifewire.com/best-smart-clothes-4176104).

Against

Very few websites had anything negative to say about wearable technology. The most common negative aspect was data security. “Many wearables tend to have little to no security measures keeping their data safe. The fact that much of the data is unencrypted and that most of these devices use Wi-Fi or Bluetooth connections to transmit data means cybercriminals can get their hands on it pretty easily” (https://edu.gcfglobal.org/en/wearables/how-can-wearables-affect-our-lives/1/). It is a common worry because we prefer our data to be kept secure; however, this is also a relatively easy fix and can be taken care of as wearable technology becomes more popular. Anything new will have glitches, but they can be fixed and modified.

Conclusion

My conclusion is this: wearable technology is definitely going to become a common trend in the future. Personally, I own an iWatch, a fitbit, a Bluetooth beanie with built-in speakers, another beanie that has a wire that plugs into your phone, and a pair of earmuffs that function the same way. It’s more or less an “if you can’t beat them, join them” type of situation.

Forbes stated: “Just last year, Gartner forecast that worldwide shipments of wearable devices will reach 225 million in 2019, an increase of 25.8 percent from 2018, and that smart clothing will be one of the fastest growing areas of the industry, increasing from 4.12 million shipments in 2017 to a predicted 19.91 million by 2022” (https://www.forbes.com). Technology is constantly advancing and the only way to avoid it is to completely avoid technology. For me, that isn’t an option; I would not do well in a cabin in the middle of the woods scavenging and forging– I would be dead in a few days, or at the very least trying to contact Doordash! Tech is the now and the future. Be careful, but embrace it!

When Ethnic Humor Goes Digital

Written by Lillian Boxman-Shabtai and Limor Shifman, their 2013 article takes a look at how ethnic groups are mocked, specifically in “forwarded emails.” Focusing on Israeli culture, they dive into 1000 emails and analyze 130 texts that involve ethnic groups related to the culture.

Why I chose this article?

This article was an easy chose for me. Growing up, I used to get forwards all sorts of “humorous” emails– some I found funny; most I found annoying or uncalled for. In the article, it mentions how these types of emails are often stereotypical, and I have to agree. Regardless of what they were referring to, I often found myself rolling my eyes at how ignorant the humor was because it focused on basic things rather than higher intellectual humor. Though most people don’t receive these emails anymore (they are rather outdated), the content, humor, and technological aspects still exist. Getting on Twitter, you still see these types of stereotypical humor. People think its a quick way to get some laughs without thinking of the actual harm it is doing to these ethnic groups.

Argument

After reading this article, I concur with the idea that ethnic humor is consequential. It’s basically watered-down racism.

Support

“Aggression humor is maladaptive in terms of bringing mental health benefits, as it may deter adjustment and resilience and cause attachment avoidance, lower self-esteem, loneliness, aggression, and maladjustment in the family” (https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00123/full). Aggression humor is a type of humor used to hide real feelings about a specific topic. When it comes to ethnic humor, the aggression appears because of the distaste for a specific type of ethnicity, religion, etc. It also makes the acclimation and adjustment to new-comers difficult. If the locals dislike the new people, but dislike confrontation/conflict, they will use aggression, ethnic humor to make the non-locals feel inferior.

Against

However, based on the same article, ethnic humor could be considered a coping mechanism used to help locals acclimate to newcomers (https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00123/full). Having new people enter their domain can cause issues, and humor can be considered their way of dealing with the changes, especially in the Western world. Americans, specifically, use humor to cope with situations they are uncomfortable in or affected by.

Conclusion

Based on Lillian Boxman-Shabtai and Limor Shifman’s article and Frontiers’ article, ethnic humor is a bad way to handle an uncomfortable situation where there may be conflict. While it could be a coping mechanism or a way to express their anger, it is still an unnecessary evil used to create separations in different groups of people.