Mtg 9/24: Tue-08-Feb-2022

Outline for Today

{"desc"=>"Happy Tuesday"}

{"desc"=>"Chapter 4 of Blown to Bits"}

Media

Transcript

Zoom Audio Transcript

Good morning.
morning.
morning. morning morning.
or enable.
This kind of reminds me of the scene for this well. This is what from when I was 18 the Monty python's meaning of life. know the fisher and assume tank in a restaurant. And they saying good morning to each other. And they said all look harold's being eaten. So. Sorry for that tour down memory lane there for me. Anyone Monty Python.
fans oh yeah I love multiple.
Definitely big fans yeah.
let's go ahead.
And now for something completely different. that's right.
So how's everyone doing today.
pretty good how about you, sir.
i'm pretty good. lots of things going on, last night, so. Much to build a hockey game and. So that was some good news ultimately. anyway. yeah. So. i've done a few things here. And the weather is nicer. Over the past couple days, so I got a bit of. Clear off my sidewalk a little bit better. A little bit easier when it's minus two instead of minus 22. But anyway, it's just doesn't seem right to have these temperatures at the beginning of February.
yeah I was actually just talking to my partner about that we can't believe it's the forums, usually way way colder by now.
yeah it just. goes up and down like a yo you. know the only. The only security is.
uncertainty.
Sorry go ahead.
I just said, the only means we're going to get this cold snap later.
well. The thing that I. I don't like about the weather is how it. It gets nice, but then when everything's melting, then it freezes and then everything becomes a sheet of ice. called for that.
to happen.
anyway. But I have these new pair of shoes from. That have an extra grip. And so i've been more confident on ice this winter. yeah. So that that's been a big help and serve like. wow. That is very grippy so i'm very happy with them. anyway. I don't wanna. Get too far off the beaten path here. So I. Did. Some analysis of our activity. So it's an interesting results. Here in a second. So is that noon kind of an okay thing. So what. about the activity, I realized. So maybe maybe what i'll do in the future, when I do these things is i'll make them do at the end of the day, or you can contribute by the end of the day, but. I might just do some analysis on some earlier version of the data and present that so you can maybe have the best of both worlds. so to speak. Anyway, so. it's it's not a. Very detailed analysis they did, but some interesting results anyway. Look at that and second. Maybe let's do our attendance here. Okay, here we are, for today, so our password. For you, is. right here. into the chat. Okay. Okay, so let me. Show you some of those results. The activity. So I captured the comments and i'm I did a word cloud for them. So you can see here that. We get this html entity for. An apostrophe appearing a lot. So that showed up in the word cloud as well. So I didn't do anything. With the comments for the word cloud and except I copied them. From this window and I paste it into a word cloud generator. So I did that. So, and then here is the search engine that was most helpful. 32 said, Google. And then he said duck duck go. bang and six. seven. client and. three. Because yeah. And a couple. Some other some other choices for search engines came in there. So some of the some of the answers, since this was just a text form to. capture the data so some of the responses were. not exactly what I was expecting. So we got some free for answers here as well. So then. Then we got to the URL most helpful. So the canada.ca public health services diseases to 2019 Nova novel coronavirus infection prevention risks that was the one that came up the most often. And then, a link from the CDC. centers for disease control the state's got 11. American association of retired persons. case you wanted what a rp is. there's also a Canadian version it's called carp. So then info 2020 Howard low how to lower coronavirus risk I got 11 and then. Six people. singled out the health that Harvard EDU. And then. Who. I chuckled to myself and they said, who. The World Health Organization website has a cup three it's there and then. Wikipedia. comes up for three. And then there's a different health Canada website. Well, I tried to consolidate these I missed one here so there's four there's a fourth vote for the Wikipedia article. And then, a few others a plate came in, with one each. Another page on the website. University of new Hampshire. You receive California Davis. So the. So asked about options and so options. weren't. discussed a lot. But. Can you one. I wonder. Whether. presents that are. Of. Time are timely and the information is changing. And certainly. Google Google should. Understand that's the case for coven. and other search engines as well. Then, how do we. Ensure that we are getting the latest information that's the latest and best information. Because the aarp website is from. So that doesn't really talk about vaccinations. So let me go and. So when I was formulating this activity. The seamless. The idea that I was going for is is that people are. confused about things, what risks related to coven. And so I wanted to see what can we get some clarity my doing a search for them. So if I do a search right now for. Make sure that I get the rate. phrase here. So what I noticed, some people who said, Google is helpful. And he talked about the first links. So they talked about CDC how to protect yourself and others. But there wasn't a discussion about this material that comes up front. So last week, especially, it was a hot topic about. Understanding the effectiveness of vaccines against. to minimize my risk. Should I be vaccinated is vaccination and part of minimizing my risk of care of contracting and transmitting coven. So a common question that came up. From Google so there's. To look at this structure here there's a coven link here. let's open that in a separate tab. So that's just a search. For code 19. And then. So we get let's see what what's the dog say here. So I can share send feedback. So I get a choice of looking at overview news statistics testing symptoms variance prevention and then, are there any others treatments. Or the extra.
hello, Sarah we can't see your Google screen.
Oh i'm sorry. Thank you. Thanks for letting me know. I thought I switch back, I imagine they did anyway sorry. Okay, so so come on through now. Thinking, as I see the box around my browser window.
Yes, we can see it now.
So anyway so here's. here's the question that I asked. And so I typed it into the search box and they get. Information structured this way So the first thing is this link is this button for covert 19. which goes to a search for covert 19 and then, it gives me a number of tabs here. So if I was interested in prevention for of covert 19 my click there. So again, this is it gets us to the point of where I think we were looking at this last day we're public health agency of Canada as a public service announcement wear a mask save lives wear a mask clean your hands keep a safe distance. And then, if I click on more info there. To go to the Canada government of Canada website. Go to prevention and risks. Then coven. So this gives you an idea of what is needed for. masks. This is different than prevention and risks if I click there. So we get to a spot that's. On the government of Canada website, but it's not the one that I would expect. I expect to lend here, and this is the page, I think that was the most part, most helpful URL identified an activity. Well, anyway, so you're gonna mention here of vaccination. Alright, so. So, to me, the more info button isn't exactly following. Maybe it matches the poster here but wearing a mask. But it isn't yours my. My interest in prevention. As much as I could because it's only focuses on masks. Whereas i'd like to see. More information about in general, what. and minimize my risk of contracting and transmitting coven. So. Well, what I wanted to say here is that. So, aside from having prevention, information and the tab. On the search results recovered 19 common question what are some preventative measures for coven. This comes from Wikipedia. And if I check. That so this about the result is a. Is a reasonable feature here, I think. So it gives. Some details of where it came from. and How my connection is to site. gives me a few other. bits of information there. But what it doesn't do is. Show me the context of. of where this message comes from. So if I do a search for that one phrase. It does come from the article. So, can you see it here. So it's taken, it seems to me that this could be. This leaving out others important. Important edit. If I look at the whole page. So several covert 19 vaccines have been approved and distributed various countries which have initiated mass vaccination campaigns. So I think we talked a little bit about this on Thursday didn't me. So. So I sent some feedback to Google saying. That I thought, leaving out other was an important. was an important change to the Wikipedia article, even though the only difference really is making the CAP, the p changing from lowercase uppercase. So. I didn't invite. Some discussion here about. And we will do will do greater room for this. let's. get a whiteboard up here. and formulate a question for.
Part Sir I just had a good question.
yeah.
So so previously, I went to this one session seminar with a librarian and she was telling us that whenever you go searching for some information, you should never consider Wikipedia as a trusted source because, like everyone gets access to edit the information in there. So, like so i'm kind of confused like should we consider taking information from Wikipedia but because most of the time we don't really know who is leaving the information there, and if even if it's like trustworthy or not.
With Wikipedia you can pretty much check all the sources bottom. yeah sometimes there are like errors, where people do like change the page. maliciously but. yeah anywhere, though. yeah. If you look at the sources that Wikipedia has that of that page, you can find out whether or not that information is valid based on where they're getting their information from. But it is a great way to understand a topic.
But like, as you said, like sometimes people do it for malicious purposes, how do we. know if.
it's it's rare it's it's just at this point Wikipedia the people that are malicious have just basically been kicked off it was mostly in the early days when. There wasn't that many users but there's so many editors now to the point where anybody that's like just coming in with an account that has high level because that's essentially how you can edit high level Wikipedia pages. They they just get outraged by the 10 other people that do it.
I agree, yes. Well edited enough that I can trust it. In most almost all cases looking for alternative sources to double check is a great idea it's something you should definitely do but usually if it's not like a PDL trusted.
Well, very high school concern I guess.
it's a very which concern.
Most of our teachers in high school had that concern they if you had Wikipedia as a reference because that's you can just reference all the references that Wikipedia has.
yeah so. The common foe Wikipedia. That I have on my webpage is an put is some advice for you and dealing with Wikipedia it's a great place to start looking for information on a topic, but it's not a great place to end up, I mean so don't include references to Wikipedia. But. Wikipedia I think is generally provides a good. introduction to a topic. And so I don't know that the problems of false or. misleading information Wikipedia is completely solved, but there are a number of editors. So there's quite a group of people who keep track of edits to. Different pages. and make sure that the information is. Up to their standard and if it's not up to their standard. They can insert different warnings, so you might have seen Wikipedia pages that say. This needs more citations this is too much like a press release i'm not. quoting the text messages verbatim. And i'll recall them exactly but they'll have different warnings in the text, so you can. indicate that you should be extra wary of of what you're reading there. So I mean another. Another trap for sources online is things that look like they're from an official organization. But. it's not quite. The name isn't quite right and so maybe they've. To pretend pretending to be an impartial government authority, but really they're. Pushing their own agenda. And it's hard to tell from the URL that. At first glance, it might look like it's a legitimate source, but it really isn't. So that's another source of misinformation. or not nestle misinformation but. So we need to be careful not just about Wikipedia. We need to be careful with everything that we read on the Internet and make sure that. We. don't just rely on one source. Whatever good it is. or good at appears to be. We should find multiple sources for the same information. that's one way to protect ourselves. This is a long question here. On the snippet on Google. Let me get into a little bit smaller. or not smaller but. So is Wikipedia trusted source so that's just a general question but, more particularly, should Google use Wikipedia as a source for snippets of code 19 when the snippet on Google is different from the Wikipedia source, who should rest of discrepancy. So is it up to Google to say they need to correct the way they're. they're finding snippets on Wikipedia. Or is it should could Wikipedia improve the way it's. Should we should they be explaining how they get to that result. That makes sense for a question. Okay, so i'm going to open breakout rooms and. let's take 10 minutes to discuss this. Well before I do that or when i'm setting that up there are questions about the question on the stream, please let me know. Okay, so let's see in 10 minutes. Okay, so let you share your screens within your wiki within your breakout rooms. Okay. Okay who's left let's see. So, then, we. So ramp, can you tell me which room your shirt man, which what's your classwork group number.
um.
yeah i'm in group five.
Okay.
what's your group number. Okay, let me deal with those josh.
Okay.
So if you're not can you. If you're not getting an invite your group post your group number, you should be in and i'll sign you there. Okay anyone else who's still in the main room, can you post, the group number. You should be assigned to and i'll assign you to that room. you're not able to get there yourself. So it's not quite a few people in the main room. For those of you. Students, in the main room, can you. Join your group or. Post your group number in the chat and I will assign you to it. To that room. Excuse me. Okay, so we're at 10 minutes started, so we need to wrap up. No okay. everyone's back, I guess, all right. So, is that a good discussion.
So, because one of the better ones.
that's good okay.
Anyone like to share.My group.
My group said that we did not trust Wikipedia as a main source mostly because there is so much foot traffic and to patient patrolling versus other smaller pages. Maybe to use it as a third source or not even a secondary. We felt that Google was. Responsible to. address those discrepancies and we weren't sure what the process was that they used us we didn't feel comfortable saying whether or not it was transparent.
Okay.
My group basically said the same thing, Google or Wikipedia isn't a credible information source just to the fact that it is possible for. malicious store fingering. Incorrect users to edit the page, although, even though there is a team of mods who are trusted, so I think yeah disavows it for being credible source. I want to step on Google is different from the Wikipedia source, I think it is google's responsibility or any search engines responsibility to. address the differences there should be a. way for search engines to search algorithm that checks for factual information. And for the final question. Is the process transparent I don't think it is because I don't understand the algorithms and I don't I wouldn't know where to look to find that information out.
yeah okay.
um no group we talked about Wikipedia is a good source to start a topic. But when it when it came to Google, we thought that it was it was pretty reasonable for Google to use Wikipedia as a source. Because that is what most people use Google for is to get an initial idea about a topic, it is the most initial idea so someone has a question they don't really know what's going on with a topic they'll search it up on Google. So even if it's not as it doesn't have as much context or it's not as accurate, it is a great place to start. And Google just pull straight off of Wikipedia they say it right underneath the little snippet. So I feel like Wikipedia is a pretty good source for Google and it is a pretty good way to start understanding, a topic.
Okay.
So when you said pulled directly from Wikipedia So do you think they've pulled directly from Wikipedia or is that. Or is the fact they've started. They excluded the word other from that sentence. Is that. A major issue a minor issue or no issue at all, people should just go to Wikipedia and read it selves.
um I mean a lot of the the snippets are used by like. Virtual assistants kind of thing and a lot of people ask those type of questions and they just want a quick answer some people will search something on their phone. And they just get that snippet they don't want to go through a Wikipedia page and and understand the whole topic, they just want a very rudimentary understanding of something. Okay, so when Google does that little snippet. yeah if you lose a lot of context might be a little missed it misinformed on the topic, but you're not really diving deep, so I don't think most people it's on their mind when they're searching something on Google like that.
So if somebody said. Well, that i'm playing the devil's advocate here say that I said, well, I don't think vaccines work and they said well you know because I looked on Google. and asked about how to progress minimize my risk of contracting and transmitting coven and it said wear a mask and wash your hands and social distance, but I do those things it doesn't say I should get a you know I don't think. Vaccination is. A preventive measure.
So, from what I understand Google when it comes to controversial topics, they will pull from a. A different source than Wikipedia so I understand that if you search something about coronavirus it'll come from the CDC or the World Health Organization. Or, if you look up something about racism they'll pull it from the anti defamation League and so when it comes to controversial topics, they have a different policy. But that's what I understand.
Okay, but sorry. So this query wasn't controversial. I mean so we're talking about. Google, providing a snippet. editing Wikipedia by. Removing the other at the beginning of the sentence.
Right.
Where does that fit on in the scale of things, do you think.
Again it's it's like an initial understanding of a topic if if you want more information, the link is right there for you to click in and get more context and. And if you do want to understand the topic better most people will go in and read more. about it than just read.
The Green, I understand that, but then. Do you think it's.
Reducing the grand scheme of things there's not really much they. can do in terms of like their algorithm. And I don't think it's that big of a problem. Okay, but I.
Think it's a huge problem.
also think it's a huge problem, but I agree with your point that it's in the users hands to. You know, establish what are good sources and verify their readings.
well.
yeah so. So we're offloading things to the individual again.
I think it's on it. will actually.
To.
produce. skepticism and individuals. On the schooling system to produce skepticism in. Young people they don't do enough of that in school, so people don't like they trust sources, and then you know it kind of leads you down that rabbit hole right now.
yeah. So do you think we're thinking we're doing critical thought here in this class. And are we encouraging that.
thing so.
Very.
Sure, I found that.
it's it's kind of. not giving you a lot of freedom there, so of course we're doing this in class Dr happening who's going to sign my final grade. So I understand that. So maybe you don't have free and unformed. I mean you're you're not feeling completely free to give me an honest answer there. So.
I found our using critical thinking in this class because we're not we're being forced to not view everything at face value or being forced to actually look deeper into the subjects which, in turn, is making us think more critically due to the extra information we're getting from this.
Okay.
And it's not like we discourage different opinions I said something people didn't agree, no one said anything it's not it's not like we're forced to learn, only one opinion. Okay.
So.
So there have been some there's lots of stuff going on in Ottawa, especially this these past few days so. It makes the discussion about. It We talked a little bit about the public good and what does that mean exactly. And I think. there's. There are competing visions of public but being advanced. So we need to think carefully about what that implies as well. anyway. So. here's a question that I. That I didn't add on to my long question already for the breakout room but. So do you think. The way the Google makes a snippet. Is it. If Wikipedia got some feedback about. How that was creating the snippet. Could Wikipedia. The editors make that paragraph. More more clear. That makes sense, so instead of. So let me go back to the.
The article here, I actually have an idea what they could do to fix that they could. Have a piece of code inside the web page that directs any snippets that are taken to be only from a certain section, or only from a like you can design that encode very easily for any a smart assistant to pick up.
So, can you explain a bit more.
So when you're designing like a. CS website, or whatever so like Wikipedia or html you can have certain headers that. Direct certain requests to certain sections of pages, so what you could do is design a header that directs any home assistant or any Google assistant or any assistance in general. To a certain section to only snip from that way it's a it's like a border for what it can actually take out of that page.
Okay, so in one sense, I could just be an ID for the. For the block of text.
yeah exactly.
Good design. say I had a heading out this. Beginning with a paragraph several covert 19 vaccines have been approved that data so bad hanging there prevention. and And so the link then just go to the Wikipedia page it goes went to that. That header with the ID. So I end up with this paragraph.
yeah exactly so you would direct it to a specific paragraph for a specific section of words.
yeah Okay, so I see the. input value of that.
It just be very complex to edit on every page for Wikipedia can be tremendously expensive as well.
So anyway, so if I just finished my thoughts, so I mean that's an interesting idea that we have named links so. We don't end up kind of just on the. In the middle of the ocean, so to speak, when we went to find an island and we ended up. So our navigation is more precise. But then i'm wondering if the snippet could give some feedback to Wikipedia. Or if there's a process that said that said here's the input text that we. use for the snippet, and this is what we came up with. So. That could be a metric for the Wikipedia editors to say we need to have. You know, we could evaluate the. Quality of the snippet Jared for a paragraph. or. If the snippet isn't very good. Then, how do we improve the writing of the paragraph, so the point I was getting at is, for example. You know, for talking about preventive measures. You know, we we start by describing. You know, say, the WHO. says that vaccination, you should get vaccinated when it's your turn that's important. that's a very effective tool against contracting and transmitting covert. Either preventive measures include. and so on and so forth. That makes sense. So I just want to. Before we run out of time today, I wanted to just have a quick discussion about. project proposal due dates. So is Monday the 14th still a good date. or. You can let me know if we can discuss that on Thursday. And in terms of ideas. So I heard about the sweet Bobby podcast. Which is about. Just here.
Okay.
There it is so let me post that link in the chat. So maybe people are asking about reviewing things and so maybe this is an appropriate. basis for view, so this is a story about a catfishing. The cat phishing scam that went over a number of years and. So if that's of interest. Maybe instead so we could talk about the podcast and the issues are that arise from it. And then the other thing that we're just talking about today. You know, maybe focus on. How does Google come up with snippets and how do we. How do we. Make use of them. And then lastly. Now go. So Chapter four and blown to bits is about search engine so maybe that's a good thing to look out for our continuing discussion. anyway. So. Any questions or comments about that. And then say, if you have. If you decided and working in a group for a project. You could even. host that. To worst you post. You can. Oh i'll make a discussion topic of project groups, then you can reply to that. So that we can serve the project groups before you submit the assignment. Okay, any questions or concerns before we say goodbye for today.
So, will you be available at your office hours today after 10.
Yes, so I have between 10 and noon today. Okay.
Thank you so Sir.
you're very welcome. Okay. Alright, so have a good day everyone. Take care stay well. And we'll talk again Thursday, maybe before then. Okay.
Have a good day bye guys.
thanks you too.

Zoom Chat Transcript

good morning guys!
good morning
Good morning!!
Good morning
Morning
morning
Good morning
good morning
Good Morning
I loved that movie
just a flesh wound
Student password
0afob3
you can use Wikipedia as a starting point
Hi, I didn’t get a breakout invite
same
Same here
Me aswell
Group 9
Hi, I should be in group 4
I didn’t get an invite either - but I should be in 11
I'm in 1.
11
7
4
Any search engine* good point.
That is also a very good point.
Anyone can edit Wikipedia, so should not be trusted. Google is the same, only thing that should be trusted are peer reviewed paper/articles from well known medical sites
https://www.tortoisemedia.com/listen/sweet-bobby/
can I have password for attendance I was late
0afob3
thanks
Thank you
thanks have a great day
Thanks
Thank you!
Thank you
thanks
Thank you
Thank you
Thank you
thanks

Responses

The most important thing that I encountered:

The reliability of Wikipedia.
the most important thing i learned today was that wikipedia is not suitable for research, it can potentially be argued that it is a good source to used for a quick google search. Most people are looking for a quick answer to their question rather than an in-depth article.
The most important thing that i learned in the lecture today is that when google is pulling information from site for the snippet at the top of the search results sometimes google takes things out of context, and it is important to click on the source and find the information in context to get a better understanding of what is being searched.
I did not know Google sources information in such a way.
wikipedia can be a some what trusted website but is better off for being a link to other sources
Is that many people still believe Wikipedia is an unreliable source when it will blatantly tell you that certain quotes aren't cited or that the citation is under review
Today we go through the result of "How can I minimize my risk of contracting and transmitting covid. We also discuss that Wikipedia is trustable for it resources or not and I come to conclusion that Wikipedia is good for learning some basic information of topic. We also have to look for other sources for getting more correct detailed about the topic because it is easy to edit in Wikipedia. Wiki is open source if we start learning our topic from wiki is good but there are not that much accurate some time.
google search engine is helpful.
Today I learned that google uses wikipedia for snippets when you search about a topic. The goal of this is to provide someone with a quick overview of a topic. The problem is that it can be inaccurate. As with all problems we ask who is responsible. I believe Google is responsible because its their algorithm. Tools available to them would be partnering with wikipedia to help improve their snippets. Is this process transparent. No. We dont fully understand these algorithms and how they choose snips.
Wikipedia is a good web that provides a general introduction of topic to start, but it should not be the end. We should not just rely on one source. However, for COVID issues, wiki is not a good place to get information. Because anyone can edit wiki pages, and medical information need to be accurate.
In today’s class we discussed about Wikipedia as a source. I believe that Wikipedia should not be used as a reliable source because anyone is allowed to edit the information on the page. This information is not fact-checked or deemed unreliable by its parent company. Google must dedicate a governed body of officials as people may not be aware of its credibility.
The most important thing I learned is how Wikipedia’s results can not always be trusted. Make sure you follow the citations on wikipedia rather than using the wiki itself. Google snippets may not always be accurate
Wikipedia is great for collecting a few ideas but should not be used as a primary source. It should be treated as a secondary source and users should be cautious when reading wiki articles. It is always advised the user verify the sources listed at the bottom of the page.
Today's discussion thought me how Wikipedia itself is not a credible source to look for information. As it gives people the ability to edit information and gives access to the algorithm to some extent. So, we do not know if the information provided is even valid or not. So, people should use Wekepidia just to start with their research and to make themselves familiar with the topic.
Based on the earlier discussion, in my opinion, Wikipedia can and cannot be a reliable source. You can use it to get quick information but, you can not use it for school. Teachers and librarians would argue that it is not a reputable source because it can be edited by anybody. You can, however, utilize the listed references at the bottom of the page. It can be beneficial. Furthermore, fact-checking is recommended to ensure that the material is trustworthy. Wikipedia is still vulnerable to fake information.
Today's class had an interesting topic of discussion about our opinions on Wikipedia. It is a good topic to have a debate on Wikipedia, whether it is a credible source of information or not. In my opinion, Wikipedia is a great source to learn about the basics and overview of any topic or subject. But it is not very reliable if you're looking for detailed information about some serious topics. For example, people should not rely on Wikipedia regarding every news and information regarding Covid 19.
I found it very interesting to discuss the responsibility of search engines to have unbiased results. Our discussion group talked about how google, or any search engine, must be very careful if they don't want to spread disinformation with their tailored results.
In today's class, I talked with students and group friends about what they thought about Wikipedia. I don't trust Wikipedia 100%. This is because Wikipedia can be edited and posted fake information.
In today's discussion we talked about Wikipedia. I learned that although Wikipedia is a good starting point to learn about a new topic and get idea, it should not be use as a reference. Everyone has access to edit it and it is possible that someone put wrong information to it leading you to get wrong information about your topic. It is not a reliable source.
i learned that wikipdia is a good starting place when you're doing some kind of research. Also, the moderation on wikipedia is quite strict and professional these days which prevents malicious actors from putting incorrect information onto the site.
I learned that Wikipedia is a very untrusted source. It contains a lot of useful information but it is always a great idea to double/triple check your information with other similar sources for your results
I learned that Wikipedia is not trusted source for many in depth topics since it may not have completely up to date information.
I found today's breakout discussion topic quite interesting and in my opinion, Wikipedia is good for looking up some general information about a topic or a principle to get a brief idea about a topic but it is much better finding multiple sources for same information to get reliable information and protect ourselves. Anyone with access to the Internet can edit Wikipedia which makes it less reliable source of information as compared to highly-trusted peer reviewed paper/articles from a reputable database.
The most important thing that I learned today is about if Wikipedia is a trusted source.
Today I have learnt about how Wikipedia is not a reliable source to depend on and also I wasn't aware that Wikipedia could be edited by multiple user. I have got to know that the facts published there are not checked so we can't assume that every information is genuine. Wikipedia is good for glance information and it is at the forefront of the browser which helps us to understand the concept in simple terms. Wikipedia has indepth subject matter which most of us doesn't use them.
Wikipedia is a good source to learn new things quickly but it cannot be considered a trustable source because people on the internet can can be change the information available on the website. Also the information is not verified so it cannot be trusted. At any information it contains at a particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or just plain wrong. Hence wikipedia is not a reliable source.
I learned that there is no transparency in the information verification process, that is how Wikipedia gives information that is not verifiable. I also learned that a couple of search engines give information on the government of Canada while others don’t.
In today's session i got to know that Wikipedia offers free and reliable information instantly. ... This means all information must be presented accurately and without bias, sources must come from a third party; and a Wikipedia article is notable and should be created if there has been “third-party coverage of the topic in reliable sources”.
In today's meeting we have discussed about the activity which was given by the Dr. Hepting about finding the top link from the three different browser. We also have breakout session where we have discuss about the wikipedia is trusted source? Or should google use wikipedia source for snippets about COVID-19.
In todays lecture we discussed about the results of "How can I minimize my risk of contracting and transmitting COVID?" and then we had a discussion topic for class discussion. We discussed about 'Is Wikipedia a trusted source? Should google use Wikipedia for snippets.'. According to me Wikipedia is trusted at some extent but should not used for Research paper. Whereas Google should not interrupt with Wikipedia as it is free source of information and anyone can edit the information.
Looked at the COVID transmitting activity results, prevention and risks. Talked about is wikipedia a trusted source? And is all the results shown while searching are transparent?
The most important thing that I learned today was about the google snippets. I never thought about the google misrepresenting the real source information while making snippets from that. I learned that we should never blindly trust those snippets. We should always visit the source from which the snippet is taken and double check the information that we get from those snippets. As per my opinion, google should not temper with any of that information while making snippets from them.
the most important thing i learned today is how can i minimize the risk of covid 19 infection and how can one prevent the spread of covid infection by taking preventive measure and following the rules made by the government. Then the discussion took place on whether we should consider wikipedia a reliable source for the information. Wikipedia can be used as a source for the information but we should also consider other sites as reference and for gathering information. Then we discussed about the project pro
You cannot hold wikipedia on a pedestal, although a good source, it is not completely a credible course. People need to fact check information before they put it to use. Since wikipedia can be edited by anyone, it does not fact check itself. One small edit (if not correct) can spread a lot of misinformation.
In today's lecture I got know about different types of search engines and how to use it with different functionalities.
Wikipedia is not a reliable source for citations or for academic writing. Information on Wikipedia is taken from other sources so I think it is a good place to start, but its not a place we should rely on. As a computer science students, we must learn how to judge, how to determine what information is trustworthy
3D printed guns was a topic to learn i learned how it is done to do 3d and learned about flight 401 apollo etc
We discussed today whether Wikipedia is a credible source. Anyone can edit a Wikipedia page, not just an expert on the subject. However, Wikipedia's administrators and online community make sure that edits are based on reliable citations, so Wikipedia is still largely credible. But for covid-19, Wikipedia does not give a very expert source, because it can only provide some information and cannot help people fully understand covid-19. If you need to know enough about covid-19, you are better off going to som
In todays meting we discussed about Wikipedia and how accurate the information about Wikipedia is. I'd say it could be reliable at times but overall I'd still look at other websites to see if the information is accurate or right
Today we again discussed about the types of websites and urls given priority by different search engines. We had a conversation about weather the facts on Wikipedia are trustworthy or not.According to me, Wikipedia is a popular site which is verified and suggested by reputed institutions and experts. It is recommended and prioritized by Google itself as it appears to be on the top whenever we search for information about something. Hence, Wikipedia is trustworthy.
I learned that google doesn’t create fact checks. From Google’s website the fact checking is done by websites independently and google just links them for their users to see. If the user notices something odd then the user is responsible for reporting that website to google.
I learned today that there are many different types of search engines that can show a variety of results. With Google you can see that looking up Covid-19 you get news stories but looking it up on a search engine like Bing you can get best ways to prevent yourself from contracting ovid-19.
We discussed a lot about whether google should trust taking data from Wikipedia about COVID-19. Most of us disagreed that they should not as anyone can modify the information on Wikipedia.
In today's lecture , The most important thing I learnt is that how different search engines modulate search enquiries based on Adds, Region and user search history.
The most important thing that I learned today is that Wikipedia is not a trusted source for citations and that’s because, as a user-generated source, it can be edited by anyone at any time, any information it contains at a particular time could be incorrect and malicious work in progress. However, we could use the sources available in Wikipedia to verify if the results posted are correct or not. Therefore, Google should not use Wikipedia as a source for snippets about COVID-19. Wikipedia should address the
As we all know, Wikipedia differs from the encyclopedias we usually know in that it is an emerging, open online resource that allows anyone to create entries and write articles. Since everyone can write and edit information, and this can happen anytime and anywhere, the accuracy of the information cannot be guaranteed. Therefore, rather than trusting Wikipedia in general, it is important to consult more specialized and academic sources for reference.

The most difficult thing for me to understand:

I don't really know how google can be more or less transparent in their attempts to relay information from website to user. May take more research on my part, but I'm not sure what phrases to use, or where to start looking.
How does Google's algorithm decide what to show as in their info cards

The thing about which I would most like to know more:

In today's class we discuss about snippets which are shown by google when searched on google. It is very helpful way showing main information as snippets instead of visiting the website. Google mostly show snippets for wikipedia website which should or should not be trusted for verified information. The next thing the algorithm used by google to decide website to make snippet of. The website should be selected wisely for making snippets as most users use snippets for quick review.
I would like to know more about Google's process for picking what questioned becoming a snippet and which source is chosen. I would also like to know more about why we should assume users will research to solve discrepancies because there is a saying that common sense is not so common.
The algorithms google uses to get the information for their 'snippets'.
We talked about Wikipedia being the source of knowledge about preventing COVID-19. What I would like to know about is, if it is actually logical to have Wikipedia at the beginning of every search result.
Why so many students thought it was Googles job to monitor what wikipedia was posting on their webpages. My group was thinking that Google shouldn't monitor it because Wikipedia is its own company and can say whatever they like. I don't think Google monitors every other website they have in their search engines. If you do our research properly people should be able to determine what is right and wrong. You should never trust source to begin with.
Initially, Mr. Daryl Hepting shows us the result of monday activity and the result was very interesting as google was the leading one among all its competitors. The most essential thing I took away from today's lesson was the influence internet in the IT industry. And I'm quite interested in learning more about this in future classes.
I would like to know more about the vetting system for Wikipedia and how it decides what is valid and what is not .
Today we discussed Wikipedia and its reliability when it comes to data and sources. I would like to know about choosing educational sources from the public domain and their trustworthiness.
How much power should one company have at relaying information? Everyone always makes a comment regarding facebook being a breeding ground for misinformation and conspiracy but not about what needs to fix that. Misinformation could lead to harm like with preventing covid 19 but should any discussion around said controversial topic be heavily monitored? There needs to be some open for debate in any topic but what is too far? Where should the line for data be drawn between freedom of speech and censorship?
Something I would like to know more about relating to today's discussion is how exactly Wikipedia deters vandalism across its many articles and pages. For example, I'm curious as to how the anti vandalism bots reduce bad edits and I'd like to see some metrics indicating how successful the bots are at reducing vandalism in general. I'm curious, as well, about how reliable in general Wikipedia's sources are. We spoke about not using Wikipedia as a primary source, though we can draw from the same sources Wikip
how some people get covid-19 and die while others don't.
I would like to know more about how google decides what information to put in a snippet. With the covid wiki article it left out the previous sentence which connected to the preventative measures. So, does google just start a snippet from the point it can find the key words? How does it decide which information is the most important to show?
How Google's algorithm works for picking out snippets of information in a website (Wikipedia) and how it determines what to leave out and include. It may help people to understand the results that are being shown to them (why it picked that result/snippet).
Based on topic for this class, I feel like since people can edit on Wikipedia, people don't trust/believe the feedback with the given options, whether the information is true or not. Also, I would suggest Google or any search engine to create snippets from reliable websites rather than just acquiring snippets that have the same sentence or words in the discussions. What I want to learn more about is how Google obtains their snippets when someone searches something. Like, how do they find the answers?
the thing i would most like to know more about is how google chooses its snippets. Also in the cases where they come from non Wikipedia sources why they choose those specific sources. Are they curated or run by an algorithm
Transparency about algorithms and how something is designed is important and necessary. I want to know more about why this is difficult to achieve for most of the technology we utilize. I also want to know more about the role of educators in the computer science world: what is essential to be taught to society? Why haven't most schools emphasized the importance of digital and media literacy a bit more? Not to mention the importance of distinguishing unreliable sources from those that can be trusted.
I would like to know how credible Wikipedia can be because anyone can edit it. I wanna know the stats behind it too.
Should google have control on wikipedia eventhough wikipedia is a different company? What are the advantages and disadvantages of having your own control over your company?
I do find the area of the search engine algorithms very interesting. Google and other search engines have a major impact on our society, whether that be positive or negative impact is very hard determine. With the amount of false information out there, it really takes a skeptic to truly learn both sides of a topic.
How can we tell what sources are better than others?
I want to know more about how search algorithms such as google decides what snippets of information are taken from a webpage and displayed on the search results. I would also like to know more about how a search engine and a webpage could go about fact checking their information so that it can present information as being factually true or false.
how google decide what snippet as their search result
In todays class, we discussed about the topic given in the class. Professor has opened all the breakout rooms and we should discuss all the given questions.
How do we ensure that the best information gets presented to the public? Who is in charge of saying this is the most important information and of making sure that is as easy as possible for the public to find? I tend to think this would likely have to be more of a governmental role - although in an age where people trust their government less and less that could be a very tricky proposition. Some form of regulation would very likely be required.
i want to know more and the project perrosol, about if i am going to talk about secure problem what kind of topic is relate to the class

Wiki

Link to the UR Courses wiki page for this meeting

Site built: 2023-11-29 17:37 -0600 • Give feedback about page