Add Dramatic Color to Photographs: Photoshop Tutorial!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eneyl4KS99A
Lumière: L'Arrivée d'un train à La Ciotat (1895)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cUEANKv964
Soft Sinema
Wednesday 29 September 2010
Wednesday 22 September 2010
Using Digital Photography Tools: handcoloring a black and white photo
 |
| Here's my original photo - I then followed the instructions (see webct link or the videobar tutorials to the right) to change your photo to black and white and then "handcolour" it. |
 |
| Here's the photo after converting to black-and-white and then "handpainting" with Photoshop |
Wednesday 15 September 2010
Open Source
Software Freedom
BarCamp HK 2010 will be held on Saturday, September 18, 2010 at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University
click for more details BarCamp HK 2010
Opensource.hk
is an online open-source software (OSS) community in Hong Kong.
It is aimed to be a communication channal of Hong Kong OSS Community. Besides online communication on internet, our active members and friends organises some irregular meetups, seminiars and other events in Hong Kong.
Creative Commons
Creative Commons Hong Kong (CCHK) brings the Creative Commons licenses to Hong Kong by porting CC licenses in compliance with Hong Kong’s Copyright Ordinance.
BarCamp HK 2010 will be held on Saturday, September 18, 2010 at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University
click for more details BarCamp HK 2010
Opensource.hk
is an online open-source software (OSS) community in Hong Kong.
It is aimed to be a communication channal of Hong Kong OSS Community. Besides online communication on internet, our active members and friends organises some irregular meetups, seminiars and other events in Hong Kong.
Creative Commons
Creative Commons Hong Kong (CCHK) brings the Creative Commons licenses to Hong Kong by porting CC licenses in compliance with Hong Kong’s Copyright Ordinance.
Imagine this
A bunch of aliens have control of the earth. For some strange alien reason, they have decided that ONE AND ONLY ONE encyclopaedia can remain in existence worldwide (in multiple languages). They have made you "World Knowledge Advisor" and ordered YOU to make the choice of encyclopaedia for all humankind. Only if you can make a choice, and back it up with good well-researched arguments, will they will allow you to live.
They have given you only two choices: an open-source online encyclopaedia such as Wikipedia or a well-respected online proprietary encyclopaedia such as Encyclopaedia Brittanica? Which will you choose? Why?
Take into account quality, accuracy, cost, the needs of particular cultures and any other factors that you feel are relevant.
HERE ARE OUR BEST PRO-ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITTANICA ARGUMENTS
Group VB
Our group goes with the Britannica. And we choose Britannica for basically two reasons: accuracy and user-friendly. We have our arguments as follows.
Firstly, if only one encyclopedia can be left for human beings, it has the responsibility of the continuity of knowledge. Our offspring will have to depend on it to study, to explore, so the accuracy is very important, because we don’t want to mislead them. And Britannica is more accurate than Wikipedia. Quoted from Hioberg (senior vice president and editor in chief of Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc. ) ‘Britannica has published more than a hundred Nobel Prize winners and thousands of other well-known experts and scholars. Contrary to Wikipedia, Britannica's contributor base is transparent and not anonymous.’ This is the main reason for our choices.
Secondly, we found that Britannica is more user-friendly than Wikipedia. Here are the homepages of these two encyclopedia.
1. Britannica
2. Wikipedia
We can judge from the pictures above that although Wikipedia has a lot of information, but it is too messy, because the page is not so well-organized. As for Britannica, we have clear categories, we have dictionary and news, we also list some articles like news for today. It’s easier for us to find useful information from this well-organized page. And we searched for ‘Plato’ as a test. The result just as follows.
3. wikipedia
http://www.britannica.com/bps/search?query=Plato Britannica
Wikipedia simply pumped out a page talking about who Plato is and his theories and life and so on. It did give out great lists of footnotes, references and extensional readings. But Britannica did even better. It listed all the result on the page, and when you put your mouse on each of them there would be a brief introduction of the resources so that you can choose what to read more specifically and easily. And you can choose to read Ebook or magazine or dictionary.
As we discussed above, Britannica has obvious advantage over Wikipedia in accuracy and user-friendly. So we absolutely support Britannica to be the only encyclopedia in the world.
HERE ARE OUR BEST PRO-WIKIPEDIA ARGUMENTS
Group Zara said:
1) Many different authors
More information can be posted faster, on more topics. Also, errors can be corrected faster.
With a broader spectrum of authors there is less bias and more diversity in perspectives. This creates a more democratic system.
One example of when this was a problem for Britannica was with their article on Hinduism. More information: http://www.hinduismtoday.com/modules/xpress/hindu-press-international/2009/05/16/encyclopaedia-britannica-will-review-its-hinduism-article/
2) Better starting place for research
Many more links to other sources on Wikipedia. Example: When we looked at both sites pages on Pablo Picasso Wikipedia listed over 60 external links while Britannica only had 10.
More up to date information on Wikipedia since it is easier to change and update quickly. Examples of how Britannica takes longer for up to date information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Errors_in_the_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica_that_have_been_corrected_in_Wikipedia
When a person approaches Wikipedia as a jumping off point for further research and not as their only source it makes accuracy errors not matter so much, because additional research will correct those if there are any. We consider ourselves living evidence for this point as this is how we approach our own research.
Group Happy schooldiscuss said:
FREE ACCESSING
On the internet, the concept of "free for sharing" is very important that will burst the development of everything and bring positive competition.
Wikipedia provides free access to all of human knowledge, ultimately providing free knowledge to anyone on anything. No fees or hidden costs- just knowledge. Furthermore it provides a neutral point of view. Since the writers and editors of Wikipedia are everyday people just like you and me, they provide both sides of a story, while a for-profit encyclopedia company may edit or revise articles or sides of a story in order to keep shareholders happy.
As a collaborative encyclopedia, Wikipedia allows people from a variety of backgrounds to come together to share knowledge and information with the rest of the world. It starts a dialogue about a specific topic and encourages the rest of the world to part-take in this dialogue. As a multilingual encyclopedia, Wikipedia is not an exclusive encyclopedia; one does not need to know English to understand the text. Articles in Spanish, Dutch, French, Portuguese and Chinese are just the beginning of Wikipedia’s multilingual text.
Real-Time Content
Article writers have the ability to change and update articles that in anytime, anywhere, they don’t have to go through the book publishers. So, the Wikipedia can be served as an online newspaper. The article about Manila hostage crisis is created on 23 August, right after it happened.
Group members:Penny, Maggie, Kyra, Millie, Tina said:
1. Wikipedia can make immediate changes and correction.
>The founder of the Wikipedia tells a fact that a team of elites is always behind the Wiki system in order to monitor the Wiki anytime and anyhere. So, everything on Wikipedia is always work in progress.
evidence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQR0gx0QBZ4&feature=related
>There is a great number of volunteers from all over the world who always ready to add evidence, links, proof and reference to issues.
evidence: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Staff
2. The accuracy of Wikipedia is high.
>Wikipedia is more neutral. Because everyone can post what they know or think on the website.
>Encyclopaedia Brittanica may contains some biased information because Brittanica didn't display its rough draft and everything must be checked by a copy editor.
>Also, there are some unaccepttable and minor errors in Brittanica.
evidence: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2005/jan/26/schools.uk2
Yee Mei MOK'a Group said:
in my opinion, the best two argument to use wikipedia rather than traditional encyclopedia are that,using wikipedia is much more convenient and the information provided in there is sometimes much more updated than the traditional encyclopedia.
first of all, the accessibilty of wikipedia is very high. nowadays, in Hong Kong, most, nearly all family have at least one computer in their home, and many of them have been already enjoying the internet services because of the bloomong development of internet company like PCCW. Thus, it is not a difficult thing for a ordinary family to search wikipedia online.
Moreover, the price of an encyclopedia is quite expensive, for example, in the official website of Commercial Press (http://www.cp1897.com.hk/simple_search_result.php?simple_words=encyclopedia&first_search=true), we can found that the price of an encyclopedia is over two hundred dollars. thus, because searching the net is much cheaper than buying an encyclopedia, must people will choose to use wikipedia to find information.
on the other hand, the information is much more updatedand rich in wikipedia, for example, the authors of The Encyclopedia of the Chinese Overseas only fifty people (http://www.cp1897.com.hk/product_info.php?BookId=9620415892), but in wikipedia, there are any people with different knowlege can access into wikipedia and provide or correct any information, thus the information can be much more rich and well explained.
Group Good said:
Read them though and upload your comments:
is the argument logical?
is it well-supported (with facts, with additional points and/with examples)?
is the argument convincing/persuasive?
how could it be improved?
They have given you only two choices: an open-source online encyclopaedia such as Wikipedia or a well-respected online proprietary encyclopaedia such as Encyclopaedia Brittanica? Which will you choose? Why?
Take into account quality, accuracy, cost, the needs of particular cultures and any other factors that you feel are relevant.
HERE ARE OUR BEST PRO-ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITTANICA ARGUMENTS
Group VB
Our group goes with the Britannica. And we choose Britannica for basically two reasons: accuracy and user-friendly. We have our arguments as follows.
Firstly, if only one encyclopedia can be left for human beings, it has the responsibility of the continuity of knowledge. Our offspring will have to depend on it to study, to explore, so the accuracy is very important, because we don’t want to mislead them. And Britannica is more accurate than Wikipedia. Quoted from Hioberg (senior vice president and editor in chief of Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc. ) ‘Britannica has published more than a hundred Nobel Prize winners and thousands of other well-known experts and scholars. Contrary to Wikipedia, Britannica's contributor base is transparent and not anonymous.’ This is the main reason for our choices.
Secondly, we found that Britannica is more user-friendly than Wikipedia. Here are the homepages of these two encyclopedia.
1. Britannica
2. Wikipedia
3. wikipedia
http://www.britannica.com/bps/search?query=Plato Britannica
Wikipedia simply pumped out a page talking about who Plato is and his theories and life and so on. It did give out great lists of footnotes, references and extensional readings. But Britannica did even better. It listed all the result on the page, and when you put your mouse on each of them there would be a brief introduction of the resources so that you can choose what to read more specifically and easily. And you can choose to read Ebook or magazine or dictionary.
As we discussed above, Britannica has obvious advantage over Wikipedia in accuracy and user-friendly. So we absolutely support Britannica to be the only encyclopedia in the world.
HERE ARE OUR BEST PRO-WIKIPEDIA ARGUMENTS
Group Zara said:
More information can be posted faster, on more topics. Also, errors can be corrected faster.
With a broader spectrum of authors there is less bias and more diversity in perspectives. This creates a more democratic system.
One example of when this was a problem for Britannica was with their article on Hinduism. More information: http://www.hinduismtoday.com/modules/xpress/hindu-press-international/2009/05/16/encyclopaedia-britannica-will-review-its-hinduism-article/
2) Better starting place for research
Many more links to other sources on Wikipedia. Example: When we looked at both sites pages on Pablo Picasso Wikipedia listed over 60 external links while Britannica only had 10.
More up to date information on Wikipedia since it is easier to change and update quickly. Examples of how Britannica takes longer for up to date information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Errors_in_the_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica_that_have_been_corrected_in_Wikipedia
When a person approaches Wikipedia as a jumping off point for further research and not as their only source it makes accuracy errors not matter so much, because additional research will correct those if there are any. We consider ourselves living evidence for this point as this is how we approach our own research.
Group Happy schooldiscuss said:
On the internet, the concept of "free for sharing" is very important that will burst the development of everything and bring positive competition.
Wikipedia provides free access to all of human knowledge, ultimately providing free knowledge to anyone on anything. No fees or hidden costs- just knowledge. Furthermore it provides a neutral point of view. Since the writers and editors of Wikipedia are everyday people just like you and me, they provide both sides of a story, while a for-profit encyclopedia company may edit or revise articles or sides of a story in order to keep shareholders happy.
As a collaborative encyclopedia, Wikipedia allows people from a variety of backgrounds to come together to share knowledge and information with the rest of the world. It starts a dialogue about a specific topic and encourages the rest of the world to part-take in this dialogue. As a multilingual encyclopedia, Wikipedia is not an exclusive encyclopedia; one does not need to know English to understand the text. Articles in Spanish, Dutch, French, Portuguese and Chinese are just the beginning of Wikipedia’s multilingual text.
Real-Time Content
Article writers have the ability to change and update articles that in anytime, anywhere, they don’t have to go through the book publishers. So, the Wikipedia can be served as an online newspaper. The article about Manila hostage crisis is created on 23 August, right after it happened.
Group members:Penny, Maggie, Kyra, Millie, Tina said:
1. Wikipedia can make immediate changes and correction.
>The founder of the Wikipedia tells a fact that a team of elites is always behind the Wiki system in order to monitor the Wiki anytime and anyhere. So, everything on Wikipedia is always work in progress.
evidence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQR0gx0QBZ4&feature=related
>There is a great number of volunteers from all over the world who always ready to add evidence, links, proof and reference to issues.
evidence: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Staff
2. The accuracy of Wikipedia is high.
>Wikipedia is more neutral. Because everyone can post what they know or think on the website.
>Encyclopaedia Brittanica may contains some biased information because Brittanica didn't display its rough draft and everything must be checked by a copy editor.
>Also, there are some unaccepttable and minor errors in Brittanica.
evidence: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2005/jan/26/schools.uk2
Group EasyE said:
We think that wikipedia is the most popular encyclopedia in the world. As L. Gordon Crovitz said, "Wikipedia is in the top five Web sites, it is often the top result on Google searches, and it gets 97% of traffic to online encyclopedias." This indicates that wikipedia is more accessible and user friendly.
(Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123897399273491031.html)
Dale Hoiberg suggests that Wikipedia simply has a lot of people freely editing encyclopedia articles produces more balanced coverage. This encourges the people to share knowledge and discuss. The database is all-rounded and offer different arguments. So, people can think twice and justify themselves.
(Source:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115756239753455284.html)
(Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123897399273491031.html)
Dale Hoiberg suggests that Wikipedia simply has a lot of people freely editing encyclopedia articles produces more balanced coverage. This encourges the people to share knowledge and discuss. The database is all-rounded and offer different arguments. So, people can think twice and justify themselves.
(Source:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115756239753455284.html)
Yee Mei MOK'a Group said:
in my opinion, the best two argument to use wikipedia rather than traditional encyclopedia are that,using wikipedia is much more convenient and the information provided in there is sometimes much more updated than the traditional encyclopedia.
first of all, the accessibilty of wikipedia is very high. nowadays, in Hong Kong, most, nearly all family have at least one computer in their home, and many of them have been already enjoying the internet services because of the bloomong development of internet company like PCCW. Thus, it is not a difficult thing for a ordinary family to search wikipedia online.
Moreover, the price of an encyclopedia is quite expensive, for example, in the official website of Commercial Press (http://www.cp1897.com.hk/simple_search_result.php?simple_words=encyclopedia&first_search=true), we can found that the price of an encyclopedia is over two hundred dollars. thus, because searching the net is much cheaper than buying an encyclopedia, must people will choose to use wikipedia to find information.
on the other hand, the information is much more updatedand rich in wikipedia, for example, the authors of The Encyclopedia of the Chinese Overseas only fifty people (http://www.cp1897.com.hk/product_info.php?BookId=9620415892), but in wikipedia, there are any people with different knowlege can access into wikipedia and provide or correct any information, thus the information can be much more rich and well explained.
Group Good said:
Argument 1:
easy to use and learn
easy to use and learn
Wikis are instantaneous so there is no need to wait for a publisher to create a new edition or update information
people located in different parts of the world can work on the same document
the wiki software keeps track of every edit made and it's a simple process to revert back to a previous version of an article
widens access to the power of web publishing to non-technical users
the wiki has no predetermined structure - consequently it is a flexible tool which can be used for a wide range of applications
there are a wide range of open source software wiki's to choose from so licensing costs shouldn't be a barrier to installing an institutional wiki.
Criticize: The information may not accurate
Support: Just recently the National Institute of Health launched a new initiative to encourage their scientists to edit or start new Wikipedia entries on their area of expertise to ensure that the correct information on health issues is cited. “Wikipedia articles (there are more than 2.9 million of them in English) can be initiated and edited by anyone who can access the website. Quality is informally monitored by fellow users, who can make corrections and change the text freely. All information that is posted is supposed to include citations so a reader can check the primary sources of the data,” Washington Post article stated.
suggestion: check the primary sources which Wikipedia provided.
Support 2:
Support: Just recently the National Institute of Health launched a new initiative to encourage their scientists to edit or start new Wikipedia entries on their area of expertise to ensure that the correct information on health issues is cited. “Wikipedia articles (there are more than 2.9 million of them in English) can be initiated and edited by anyone who can access the website. Quality is informally monitored by fellow users, who can make corrections and change the text freely. All information that is posted is supposed to include citations so a reader can check the primary sources of the data,” Washington Post article stated.
suggestion: check the primary sources which Wikipedia provided.
Support 2:
“ We have traditionally protected articles to deal with temporary attacks of vandalism. In such a state, no one could edit those articles. We did not like this, so we moved to a system of semi-protection, and the quality improvements were impressive.
We will now be experimenting, first in the German Wikipedia, with a model of flagging versions as being "nonvandalized," while still allowing editing. Each of these steps is designed to be more open, and each is also designed to help achieve higher quality.
Britannica doesn't display its rough drafts, or the articles before being checked by a copy editor; Wikipedia does. We think this sort of open transparency is healthy and results in greater quality than doing everything behind closed doors.”
Suggestion: If you feel that a certain article on Wikipedia is bias or inaccurate change it yourself OR e-mail an editor.
Read them though and upload your comments:
is the argument logical?
is it well-supported (with facts, with additional points and/with examples)?
is the argument convincing/persuasive?
how could it be improved?
Reference Machine
A program to help you write references-Reference Machine
You fill in the boxes with the author's name etc. and the computer formats the reference for you.
Chicago-Style Citation Quick Guide
Chicago-Style Citation Quick Guide from "The Chicago Manual of Style Online"
Scroll down and you 'll see the citation method for Website~
You fill in the boxes with the author's name etc. and the computer formats the reference for you.
Chicago-Style Citation Quick Guide
Chicago-Style Citation Quick Guide from "The Chicago Manual of Style Online"
Scroll down and you 'll see the citation method for Website~
Wednesday 8 September 2010
CALL FOR VOLUNTEERS-WIKITOPIA
Check it out on Facebook~
Wikitopia 維基托邦
CALL FOR VOLUNTEERS
http://tinyurl.com/3924xmz
WIKITOPIA
The First Tinyfest on Collaborative Future in Hong Kong
11-19 September 2010
Videotage is going to host the first TinyFest on collaborative future in Hong Kong - WIKITOPIA. Aiming to promote free culture, an already integral part of our everyday life, WIKITOPIA connects creative individuals by offering a series of exciting events including keynotes, panel discussions, a city hack workshop, crowdsourcing screenings, mash up performances etc..
We rely heavily on your support to help organize this remarkable culture event. Being a WIKITOPIA volunteer is a rewarding experience with many perks, You will have the chance to meet artists, ICT/media activists, thinkers, curators, and work with many other volunteers with the same motivation, a perfect opportunity to shape your communication and leadership abilities.
Artists and speakers invited include:
Prof. Wendy Hui Kyong Chun (US), Professor of Modern Culture and Media, Brown University
Dr. Hector Rodriguez (HK), Associate Dean of SCM, CityU
Phoebe Wong (HK), Head of Research, Asia Art Archive
Jon Cates (US), Associate Professor, Film, Video, New Media & Animation department, SAIC
Zheng Weimin, founder of ARTLINKART.com
Henry Oh (US), CEO of Socialutions
Charles Mok (HK), Chairman, Internet Society of Hong Kong
Ignacio Garcia (ES), founding member of Platoniq
DJ Pogo (AU), electronic musician
Keith Lam (HK), new media artist
Ger Choi (HK), artist, designer, activist
and more!
WIKITOPIA will only be made successful with your participation as a combined effort in running the events smoothly. Your valuable help is central to this visionary festival.
JOIN US NOW by simply complete the following form and indicate the positions you are interested in:
http://tinyurl.com/3924xmz
----------------------------------------------
如有興趣成為義工，請填妥以下表格:
If interested, simply complete the registation form and indicate the positions you are interested in:
http://tinyurl.com/3924xmz
Form more information, please contact us anytime.
如需更多資料，請隨時與我們聯絡。
(T) 2573-1869 / (E) info@videotage.org.hk
Tuesday 7 September 2010
Imagine this
A bunch of aliens have control of the earth. For some strange alien reason, they have decided that ONE AND ONLY ONE encyclopaedia can remain in existence worldwide (in multiple languages). They have made you "World Knowledge Advisor" and ordered YOU to make the choice of encyclopaedia for all humankind. Only if you can make a choice, and back it up with good well-researched arguments, will they will allow you to live.
They have given you only two choices: an open-source online encyclopaedia such as Wikipedia or a well-respected online proprietary encyclopaedia such as Encyclopaedia Brittanica? Which will you choose? Why?
Take into account quality, accuracy, cost, the needs of particular cultures and any other factors that you feel are relevant.
HERE ARE OUR BEST PRO-ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITTANICA ARGUMENTS
Group VB said:
HERE ARE OUR BEST PRO-WIKIPEDIA ARGUMENTS
Group Zara said:
1) Many different authors
More information can be posted faster, on more topics. Also, errors can be corrected faster.
With a broader spectrum of authors there is less bias and more diversity in perspectives. This creates a more democratic system.
One example of when this was a problem for Britannica was with their article on Hinduism. More information: http://www.hinduismtoday.com/modules/xpress/hindu-press-international/2009/05/16/encyclopaedia-britannica-will-review-its-hinduism-article/
2) Better starting place for research
Many more links to other sources on Wikipedia. Example: When we looked at both sites pages on Pablo Picasso Wikipedia listed over 60 external links while Britannica only had 10.
More up to date information on Wikipedia since it is easier to change and update quickly. Examples of how Britannica takes longer for up to date information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Errors_in_the_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica_that_have_been_corrected_in_Wikipedia
When a person approaches Wikipedia as a jumping off point for further research and not as their only source it makes accuracy errors not matter so much, because additional research will correct those if there are any. We consider ourselves living evidence for this point as this is how we approach our own research.
Group Happy schooldiscuss said:
FREE ACCESSING
On the internet, the concept of "free for sharing" is very important that will burst the development of everything and bring positive competition.
Wikipedia provides free access to all of human knowledge, ultimately providing free knowledge to anyone on anything. No fees or hidden costs- just knowledge. Furthermore it provides a neutral point of view. Since the writers and editors of Wikipedia are everyday people just like you and me, they provide both sides of a story, while a for-profit encyclopedia company may edit or revise articles or sides of a story in order to keep shareholders happy.
As a collaborative encyclopedia, Wikipedia allows people from a variety of backgrounds to come together to share knowledge and information with the rest of the world. It starts a dialogue about a specific topic and encourages the rest of the world to part-take in this dialogue. As a multilingual encyclopedia, Wikipedia is not an exclusive encyclopedia; one does not need to know English to understand the text. Articles in Spanish, Dutch, French, Portuguese and Chinese are just the beginning of Wikipedia’s multilingual text.
Real-Time Content
Article writers have the ability to change and update articles that in anytime, anywhere, they don’t have to go through the book publishers. So, the Wikipedia can be served as an online newspaper. The article about Manila hostage crisis is created on 23 August, right after it happened.
Group members:Penny, Maggie, Kyra, Millie, Tina said:
1. Wikipedia can make immediate changes and correction.
>The founder of the Wikipedia tells a fact that a team of elites is always behind the Wiki system in order to monitor the Wiki anytime and anyhere. So, everything on Wikipedia is always work in progress.
evidence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQR0gx0QBZ4&feature=related
>There is a great number of volunteers from all over the world who always ready to add evidence, links, proof and reference to issues.
evidence: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Staff
2. The accuracy of Wikipedia is high.
>Wikipedia is more neutral. Because everyone can post what they know or think on the website.
>Encyclopaedia Brittanica may contains some biased information because Brittanica didn't display its rough draft and everything must be checked by a copy editor.
>Also, there are some unaccepttable and minor errors in Brittanica.
evidence: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2005/jan/26/schools.uk2
Read them though and upload your comments:
is the argument logical?
is it well-supported (with facts, with additional points and/with examples)?
is the argument convincing/persuasive?
how could it be improved?
They have given you only two choices: an open-source online encyclopaedia such as Wikipedia or a well-respected online proprietary encyclopaedia such as Encyclopaedia Brittanica? Which will you choose? Why?
Take into account quality, accuracy, cost, the needs of particular cultures and any other factors that you feel are relevant.
HERE ARE OUR BEST PRO-ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITTANICA ARGUMENTS
Group VB said:
Our group goes with the Britannica. And we choose Britannica for basically two reasons: accuracy and user-friendly. We have our arguments as follows.
Firstly, if only one encyclopedia can be left for human beings, it has the responsibility of the continuity of knowledge. Our offspring will have to depend on it to study, to explore, so the accuracy is very important, because we don’t want to mislead them. And Britannica is more accurate than Wikipedia. Quoted from Hioberg (senior vice president and editor in chief of Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc. ) ‘Britannica has published more than a hundred Nobel Prize winners and thousands of other well-known experts and scholars. Contrary to Wikipedia, Britannica's contributor base is transparent and not anonymous.’[1] This is the main reason for our choices.
Secondly, we found that Britannica is more user-friendly than Wikipedia. Here are the homepages of these two encyclopedia.
We can judge from the pictures above that although Wikipedia has a lot of information, but it is too messy, because the page is not so well-organized. As for Britannica, we have clear categories, we have dictionary and news, we also list some articles like news for today. It’s easier for us to find useful information from this well-organized page. And we searched for ‘Plato’ as a test. The result just as follows.
Wikipedia simply pumped out a page talking about who Plato is and his theories and life and so on. It did give out great lists of footnotes, references and extensional readings. But Britannica did even better. It listed all the result on the page, and when you put your mouse on each of them there would be a brief introduction of the resources so that you can choose what to read more specifically and easily. And you can choose to read Ebook or magazine or dictionary.
As we discussed above, Britannica has obvious advantage over Wikipedia in accuracy and user-friendly. So we absolutely support Britannica to be the only encyclopedia in the world.
[1] DOW JONES REPRINTS, ‘Will Wikipedia Mean the EndOf Traditional Encyclopedias?’ September 12, 2006, The wallstreet journal online.
HERE ARE OUR BEST PRO-WIKIPEDIA ARGUMENTS
Group Zara said:
1) Many different authors
More information can be posted faster, on more topics. Also, errors can be corrected faster.
With a broader spectrum of authors there is less bias and more diversity in perspectives. This creates a more democratic system.
One example of when this was a problem for Britannica was with their article on Hinduism. More information: http://www.hinduismtoday.com/modules/xpress/hindu-press-international/2009/05/16/encyclopaedia-britannica-will-review-its-hinduism-article/
2) Better starting place for research
Many more links to other sources on Wikipedia. Example: When we looked at both sites pages on Pablo Picasso Wikipedia listed over 60 external links while Britannica only had 10.
More up to date information on Wikipedia since it is easier to change and update quickly. Examples of how Britannica takes longer for up to date information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Errors_in_the_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica_that_have_been_corrected_in_Wikipedia
When a person approaches Wikipedia as a jumping off point for further research and not as their only source it makes accuracy errors not matter so much, because additional research will correct those if there are any. We consider ourselves living evidence for this point as this is how we approach our own research.
Group Happy schooldiscuss said:
FREE ACCESSING
On the internet, the concept of "free for sharing" is very important that will burst the development of everything and bring positive competition.
Wikipedia provides free access to all of human knowledge, ultimately providing free knowledge to anyone on anything. No fees or hidden costs- just knowledge. Furthermore it provides a neutral point of view. Since the writers and editors of Wikipedia are everyday people just like you and me, they provide both sides of a story, while a for-profit encyclopedia company may edit or revise articles or sides of a story in order to keep shareholders happy.
As a collaborative encyclopedia, Wikipedia allows people from a variety of backgrounds to come together to share knowledge and information with the rest of the world. It starts a dialogue about a specific topic and encourages the rest of the world to part-take in this dialogue. As a multilingual encyclopedia, Wikipedia is not an exclusive encyclopedia; one does not need to know English to understand the text. Articles in Spanish, Dutch, French, Portuguese and Chinese are just the beginning of Wikipedia’s multilingual text.
Real-Time Content
Article writers have the ability to change and update articles that in anytime, anywhere, they don’t have to go through the book publishers. So, the Wikipedia can be served as an online newspaper. The article about Manila hostage crisis is created on 23 August, right after it happened.
Group members:Penny, Maggie, Kyra, Millie, Tina said:
1. Wikipedia can make immediate changes and correction.
>The founder of the Wikipedia tells a fact that a team of elites is always behind the Wiki system in order to monitor the Wiki anytime and anyhere. So, everything on Wikipedia is always work in progress.
evidence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQR0gx0QBZ4&feature=related
>There is a great number of volunteers from all over the world who always ready to add evidence, links, proof and reference to issues.
evidence: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Staff
2. The accuracy of Wikipedia is high.
>Wikipedia is more neutral. Because everyone can post what they know or think on the website.
>Encyclopaedia Brittanica may contains some biased information because Brittanica didn't display its rough draft and everything must be checked by a copy editor.
>Also, there are some unaccepttable and minor errors in Brittanica.
evidence: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2005/jan/26/schools.uk2
Group EasyE said:
We think that wikipedia is the most popular encyclopedia in the world. As L. Gordon Crovitz said, "Wikipedia is in the top five Web sites, it is often the top result on Google searches, and it gets 97% of traffic to online encyclopedias." This indicates that wikipedia is more accessible and user friendly.
(Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123897399273491031.html)
Dale Hoiberg suggests that Wikipedia simply has a lot of people freely editing encyclopedia articles produces more balanced coverage. This encourges the people to share knowledge and discuss. The database is all-rounded and offer different arguments. So, people can think twice and justify themselves.
(Source:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115756239753455284.html)
(Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123897399273491031.html)
Dale Hoiberg suggests that Wikipedia simply has a lot of people freely editing encyclopedia articles produces more balanced coverage. This encourges the people to share knowledge and discuss. The database is all-rounded and offer different arguments. So, people can think twice and justify themselves.
(Source:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115756239753455284.html)
Read them though and upload your comments:
is the argument logical?
is it well-supported (with facts, with additional points and/with examples)?
is the argument convincing/persuasive?
how could it be improved?
Friday 3 September 2010
Your classmates' blog links
CHAN, Wai Ming Chriz
CHAU, Wan Yu Joyce
CHENG, Chiu Cheuk Elson
CHING, Kam Yi Tammy
CHOI, Ka Man Eunice
CHONG, Lai Wa Carin
CHU, Ka Kit
CHU, Shuk Yee Conroy
CHUEN, Ching Man Rachelle
CHUNG, Wai Lan Alison
HOLLINGSHEAD, Sara Marie
KU, Ching Ching Benlansha
LAU, Wing Ki Claudia
LEE, Kin Wai
LEUNG, Pui Ying Yota
LI, Wai Yu Vivian
MAK, Shuk Ping Millie
NELSON, Molly Laura
OLAGBAJU, Yetunde Jacqueline Apeke
POON, Wing Yan
SO, Man Ki Maggie
WAN, Lai Na Nina
WAN, Pui Yee
WONG, Ka Wai
WONG, Man Man Kasey
WONG, Sin Yi Stacie
XU, Qing Chirstina
YAM, Choi Tung Rainbow
YAU, Ka Yee Anna
YEUNG, Po Yi Bowie
YIN, Xiaotang Music
ZHANG, Miao Mia
Chen, Lin
Hui, MA
Pak Kin YEUNG
Law Sin Yee, Niki
Yee Mei MOK
Wednesday 1 September 2010
Modern (Digital) Times
Watch this short video clip and in a new post on your own blog note your responses to the following questions:
1. What are the benefits of the new technologies (industrial machinery, feeding machine, closed circuit cameras) shown in the film? Who gains from these technologies?
2. What is the effect of these technologies on the main character’s life/mood/body?
3. What effects does using computers and the internet have on your life/mood/body?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)