"The trouble with quotes on the Internet is that you can never know if they are genuine." --Abraham Lincoln
A very interesting perspective was brought to my attention several days ago, regarding both my post about Facebook as well as the website itself. One of the professors for my Teaching with Technology course suggested that Facebook often times is simply our "best" selves. We can choose to put up our most inspiring/interesting thoughts, our best photos, and the things that we think portray ourselves in the best light. Not only that, but we can come back and delete these things at a later date if they haven't been received well by our peers (in terms of likes or comments). In essence, he was suggesting that we need to approach an online portrayal of an individual with a healthy skepticism because it might not be an honest depiction. This idea turned out to be a wonderful transition to our class today. We played a rousing round of 20 questions (I'm sure you are wondering, "Is that possible?") in which our instructor gave himself the ability to lie twice. Quickly, our cohort started to try and close loops; fact check prior questions by asking new questions that eclipsed aspects of those that came before in a way that could check for honesty. In doing so, we proved that we were capable of approaching a task with a healthy skepticism. I should mention that, prior to the game, our teacher told us that this activity had important implications in regards to doing research online and using the internet at large. This connection is the same healthy skepticism mentioned above in regards to online selves. When we do research, read a story, or interact with the web in some other way that demands a certain level of credibility, it would behoove us to make sure that we are getting the full story including as many perspectives of the events as possible.
I'll be the first to admit, I don't do this enough. I've come close, at least half a dozen times, to ignorantly declaring the death of Charlie Sheen while he is still alive and....well not well I guess. Fortunately I have this handy website to refer to in the future. All jokes aside though, this provides another opportunity for me to reiterate the point that my Professor (he had many other outstanding points) and I are hoping to make. If I gathered my news solely from this source, I wouldn't be doing the topic the due diligence that it deserves, assuming that I have a vested interest in the vitality of Charlie Sheen (which I do, obviously...#winning). One area, among many, where this does have practical and real implications is when doing research for a job proposal, school assignment, lesson plan or anything else where your reputation is factored in. You need to ensure that the information that you are including in your work, the material that you are wedding yourself to, is accurate and honest. Nothing deflates an argument faster than false information; consider it the pin to your fragile helium balloon. But in taking some simple precautions and approaching the process of your internet research with a healthy sense of skepticism and inquiry, you can add a nice layer of Teflon to that balloon of yours! (Might not float so well anymore). Looking beyond just the interweb, I think it (it being the healthy sense of skepticism) is appropriate for addressing books, magazines, even photos and such.
Finally, if I might add as a closing thought, I don't think that this practice of ensuring that you are receiving an honest and fair depiction of an event/idea/etc is reserved for things of a professional or academic nature. I think that it deserves just as much consideration when you are having discussions with friends, sharing your opinion over the internet via some sort of social media website or perhaps, hypothetically, filming a documentary at your paper business in Scranton, Pennsylvania.
I'll be the first to admit, I don't do this enough. I've come close, at least half a dozen times, to ignorantly declaring the death of Charlie Sheen while he is still alive and....well not well I guess. Fortunately I have this handy website to refer to in the future. All jokes aside though, this provides another opportunity for me to reiterate the point that my Professor (he had many other outstanding points) and I are hoping to make. If I gathered my news solely from this source, I wouldn't be doing the topic the due diligence that it deserves, assuming that I have a vested interest in the vitality of Charlie Sheen (which I do, obviously...#winning). One area, among many, where this does have practical and real implications is when doing research for a job proposal, school assignment, lesson plan or anything else where your reputation is factored in. You need to ensure that the information that you are including in your work, the material that you are wedding yourself to, is accurate and honest. Nothing deflates an argument faster than false information; consider it the pin to your fragile helium balloon. But in taking some simple precautions and approaching the process of your internet research with a healthy sense of skepticism and inquiry, you can add a nice layer of Teflon to that balloon of yours! (Might not float so well anymore). Looking beyond just the interweb, I think it (it being the healthy sense of skepticism) is appropriate for addressing books, magazines, even photos and such.
Finally, if I might add as a closing thought, I don't think that this practice of ensuring that you are receiving an honest and fair depiction of an event/idea/etc is reserved for things of a professional or academic nature. I think that it deserves just as much consideration when you are having discussions with friends, sharing your opinion over the internet via some sort of social media website or perhaps, hypothetically, filming a documentary at your paper business in Scranton, Pennsylvania.
Great points, Mr. Smith! Not too long ago, I was reading Claire's blog, in which she discussed the power that Wikipedia had to stop a conversation because someone could just look something up. Part of my response asked, "when did it [Wikipedia] become the be-all, end-all?" If you find yourself in a class, Mr. Smith, where a student says to you, "But Mr. Smith, I looked it up on Wikipedia," what will your response be? Will you need to respond? When will you instruct your students about the vigilance, caution, and open-mindedness that they might need? And, how do you think that you would do it?
ReplyDeleteGreat thoughts Mr. G. Personally, I use Wikipedia constantly when starting a research project. I don't cite anything from the website, and I wouldn't encourage others to do the same. For approaching an unknown topic though, I think Wikipedia is a fantastic source for getting some information. Additionally, the source list at the bottom of a Wikipedia page will often have some very reputable and wonderful sources which could be cited in an academic paper. Therefore, depending on the student I might recommend Wikipedia as a place to start their research but sternly remind them that it isn't a place to draw information from. I think that what we discussed in class holds very true as far as caution and open-mindedness. The internet is an incredible well of information, but all of it must be taken with some skepticism.
Delete"I don't think that this practice of ensuring that you are receiving an honest and fair depiction of an event/idea/etc is reserved for things of a professional or academic nature." Great point. One of my takeaways from class was that that media literacy develops the skills and disposition to approach anything critically. I wonder if students are really aware that they should consider approaching their social media feeds (facebook, twitter, etc) with this same skepticism. As kids are growing up with facebook profiles that let them carefully construct their image, I wonder if there's an unhealthy norm developing where kids are immune to dishonest representations?
ReplyDeleteCasey,
ReplyDeleteInteresting perspective on the online "virtual self," and the necessity for healthy skepticism. Question: How would you go about teaching a lesson on this to a class of high school students, within the context of your subject area? I believe that I'm in the business of brainwashing--in a sense. If I don't get to them then the media or their friends will. But just telling them this is not going to be enough. There must me some engaging, memorable way to communicate the message, and you must be able to defend it as part of the curriculum. Think about that one.
As far as my particular subject area, I might show kids some times throughout history, where a media source reported something that turned out to be wrong. The first example that comes to mind is when the Chicago Tribune falsely declared Thomas Dewey the winner of the 1968 presidential election. Another example might be the distribution of newspapers and t-shirts in the New England area incorrectly declaring the Patriot's perfect season after they lost to the Giant's in the 2007 Super Bowl. Perhaps I could make the case that these are editor reviewed reputable newspapers making mistakes compared to the internet where anyone can post anything with the simple click of a button. The prior could certainly have relevancy in a curriculum, perhaps not the latter.
Delete