that publicity and society genericize us online social networking sites magnify this effect, combining the effects of advertising, options, and networking to create a population homogenized to fit the standards of the site
we create ourselves based on relations to others those relations are manifestations of our own perspectives we see ourselves from the outside looking through the other's eyes social networking literally gives us an outsider's perspective of ourselves, but this is only a exaggeration of the process that runs during face-to-face interactions
online, we see the static images and mimic them in a kinetic world we read the gestureless words and put it to tone of our own voices agreeing and disagreeing yeah but those perspectives are created by previous mimicry
capisci?
the bottom line is the main goal of a social networking site is to make money, so they have to cater to advertisers and marketers the real world is similar but offers much more escape from publicity and less formatted personality
Your example is quite different from the example shown in the article. There is no identation, your line breaks appear to be random, and all words are formatted equally.
Your example sort of sounds like a William Shatner monologue in my mind. It's annoying and has no flow, but the Live Ink example is easy to read and flows like haiku.
Your school board should not block students from reading or viewing information no matter how it's presented. It's plain foolish, and you should find a way to make the individuals who voted this through to admit to themselves that they're manifesting their own fears of inadequacy regarding teaching and personal knowledge by trying to censor a source of information more qualified to teach than the teachers themselves. Simply put, I feel the adults are worried about the kids knowing too much.
I'm just giving a suggestion on how to get this ruling reversed when you're presenting your argument to the school board because you'll have to explain why people could be inclined to change their minds when the facts of the situation have remained the same.
Any estimate of how much "accurate information" I've accumulated from Wikipedia would be an understatement. Even during class, there have been many times that Wikipedia has been used as a supplement or reference to the lesson being taught (e.g. "I can't remember off the top of my head, but check what it says on Wikipedia and I'll explain it on the board"), and it is in this form that you could begin to have Wikipedia integrated into classroom sessions. Have the children bring up a certain page, and use the teacher as a facilitator to the students' surfing. Watch what they're reading and clarify any ambiguous statements you notice. Have a day at the beginning of the year where you explain how to use Wikipedia properly and be sure to present the different types of warnings that appear above the articles so the students can start identifying themselves where they may receive misinformation.
I have to wonder what your school board is doing to fill the void created by the absence of Wikipedia. Are they getting peer reviewed textbooks updated daily? Are they replacing the teachers' brains with a machine that contains more knowledge than any non-mechanical individual can ever hope to accumulate? Are they placing hyperlinks in every book so that kids can quickly look up a word or concept that they don't understand in order to enable them to fully understand the original concept?
Lastly, I know others have said it already, but you should realize that as far as websites go, Wikipedia is near the top in terms of accuracy of information. What's going to happen now is that instead of students using the Wikipedia search box, they'll use Google and their chances of receiving what your school board regards as misinformation increase.
Slashdot Mirror
that publicity and society genericize us online social networking sites magnify this effect, combining the effects of advertising, options, and networking to create a population homogenized to fit the standards of the site
we create ourselves based on relations to others those relations are manifestations of our own perspectives we see ourselves from the outside looking through the other's eyes social networking literally gives us an outsider's perspective of ourselves, but this is only a exaggeration of the process that runs during face-to-face interactions
online, we see the static images and mimic them in a kinetic world we read the gestureless words and put it to tone of our own voices agreeing and disagreeing yeah but those perspectives are created by previous mimicry
capisci?
the bottom line is the main goal of a social networking site is to make money, so they have to cater to advertisers and marketers the real world is similar but offers much more escape from publicity and less formatted personality
go -- best game ever?? OMFG go is *the* *best* *game* EVAR >>>- - | | | |_________| | |_____________|
What is this? Advertising? Yeah thanks for the awareness of the latest blockbuster did you get $$$
Your example is quite different from the example shown in the article. There is no identation, your line breaks appear to be random, and all words are formatted equally.
/ beforeafter1.jpg
The real example can be found at: http://venturebeat.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/05
Your example sort of sounds like a William Shatner monologue in my mind. It's annoying and has no flow, but the Live Ink example is easy to read and flows like haiku.
Your school board should not block students from reading or viewing information no matter how it's presented. It's plain foolish, and you should find a way to make the individuals who voted this through to admit to themselves that they're manifesting their own fears of inadequacy regarding teaching and personal knowledge by trying to censor a source of information more qualified to teach than the teachers themselves. Simply put, I feel the adults are worried about the kids knowing too much.
I'm just giving a suggestion on how to get this ruling reversed when you're presenting your argument to the school board because you'll have to explain why people could be inclined to change their minds when the facts of the situation have remained the same.
Any estimate of how much "accurate information" I've accumulated from Wikipedia would be an understatement. Even during class, there have been many times that Wikipedia has been used as a supplement or reference to the lesson being taught (e.g. "I can't remember off the top of my head, but check what it says on Wikipedia and I'll explain it on the board"), and it is in this form that you could begin to have Wikipedia integrated into classroom sessions. Have the children bring up a certain page, and use the teacher as a facilitator to the students' surfing. Watch what they're reading and clarify any ambiguous statements you notice. Have a day at the beginning of the year where you explain how to use Wikipedia properly and be sure to present the different types of warnings that appear above the articles so the students can start identifying themselves where they may receive misinformation.
I have to wonder what your school board is doing to fill the void created by the absence of Wikipedia. Are they getting peer reviewed textbooks updated daily? Are they replacing the teachers' brains with a machine that contains more knowledge than any non-mechanical individual can ever hope to accumulate? Are they placing hyperlinks in every book so that kids can quickly look up a word or concept that they don't understand in order to enable them to fully understand the original concept?
Lastly, I know others have said it already, but you should realize that as far as websites go, Wikipedia is near the top in terms of accuracy of information. What's going to happen now is that instead of students using the Wikipedia search box, they'll use Google and their chances of receiving what your school board regards as misinformation increase.