If you missed it, last week (Jan. 26, 2012) in the Peoria Journal Star, a letter to the editor had plagiarized material. Bruce Eades of East Peoria wrote to the Journal Star regarding the story of Marines "misconduct." Unfortunately, Mr. Eades used a part of U.S. Representative Allen West's comments on the incident. Then, on Friday, January 27, the very next day, another letter to the editor appeared from Dana Arnold busting Mr. Eades for his plagiarized commentary. The Journal Star included an editor's note confirming the plagiarism.
Plagiarism is normally seen as an academic or professional infraction that leads to penalties on grades or demotions or firings at work. Here is an incident, whether intended or not, that is in the public forum outside of a professional realm of work or academia. So, with no official consequence, most would at least put this incident in nothing less than the realm of embarrassing and it would seem Mr. Eades loses a significant amount of credibility in general.
Lesson to students: Plagiarism is just plain wrong no matter where it happens. Be sure to always cite your souces and take ownership of your own ideas.
Friday, January 27, 2012
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Wild Wild West or www.regulation
WWW. Is that World Wide Web or Wild Wild West? Is it time for the www to come to an end? Last week, Wikipedia and its friends went black to protest the SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) and PIPA (Protect Intellectual Property Act) legislation. Lots has been said about these topics and anytime something like this hits Washington it gets a dozen different spins. This post is not designed to rehash the pros and cons of these two acts specifically, but rather to address the topics of legislation in this basically free and "Wild West" virtual world of the Internet.
The government has basically kept their hands out of the law-making business in regards to the Internet beyond the attempted laws to protect children and citizens from viewing or becoming victims to inappropriate behaviors/crimes. We may have noticed an increase of legislation as state governments attempt to protect local businesses by taxing online sales. But this is first, very public, attempt of the federal government to directly hold companies and individuals accountable for use of information (most copy written and owned by others) that is posted online for some kind of profit and ownership or covert reason. Is it time for this kind of legislation? Are corporations, organizations, governments able to "police" enough to protect intellectual properties with or without a federal law?
In the schools and education it is common for students and the schools to use information found on the Internet for educational purposes and most uses are protected under fair use copyright clauses. But what happens when those students who have, for years, used others ideas, images, audio files, for presentations in education and learning now move into the corporate world where now corporate profit, salaries, and promotions are at stake? Fair use and educational purposes are not vaild when someone is making money or receiving promotions for creating "original" documents and sales presentations from others' ideas. This is where legislation and laws come into play. Is it time to address these issues beyond basic copyright laws? Should the individual be responsible for their actions or should companies like Google, Wikipedia or others be held responsible for allowing postings of copyright materials?
Most would agree that more legislation is not the answer, but is some legislation needed to draw a line? The question becomes where is the line and who is going to be in charge of that line? When it comes to the Internet, those questions are gray and fuzzy. The concepts and ideas are intangible and when posted online, can even be difficult to attribute to an individual.
It seems that last weeks protest got the attention of people; I know in our school students and staff noticed that Wikipedia was not accessible. Will discussion continue outside of Washington now that the "protest" is over? Will lots of money and interest groups control what happens to the Internet as it does with many other aspects of our legislation? Discussion between the intellectual properties of education and corporation, and the Internet holders of those intellectual properties of Google and Wikipedia, and government officials need to continue this discussion. What makes this whole discussion difficult as a general citizen is who is representing whom? Ideally, the government should represent the people, but that is put into question constantly. We need to remember who the Internet properties represent because they have positioned themselves to say that they represent the individual. We need to be careful of that. We need to follow this and make our voices heard. The Internet is ingrained in our lives whether we like it or not and this is too important to put in the hands of stake holders who do not have us, the people, in mind. We are more important than the dollar, hopefully.
Knee-jerk legislation cannot pass because we all know, once legislation is in play, it is almost impossible to rescind, and it ends up constantly getting morphed with "improvements." Hopefully, discussion and collaboration can result in laws that do what they are intended to do: Protect those that use the Internet and ideas that are shared.
The government has basically kept their hands out of the law-making business in regards to the Internet beyond the attempted laws to protect children and citizens from viewing or becoming victims to inappropriate behaviors/crimes. We may have noticed an increase of legislation as state governments attempt to protect local businesses by taxing online sales. But this is first, very public, attempt of the federal government to directly hold companies and individuals accountable for use of information (most copy written and owned by others) that is posted online for some kind of profit and ownership or covert reason. Is it time for this kind of legislation? Are corporations, organizations, governments able to "police" enough to protect intellectual properties with or without a federal law?
In the schools and education it is common for students and the schools to use information found on the Internet for educational purposes and most uses are protected under fair use copyright clauses. But what happens when those students who have, for years, used others ideas, images, audio files, for presentations in education and learning now move into the corporate world where now corporate profit, salaries, and promotions are at stake? Fair use and educational purposes are not vaild when someone is making money or receiving promotions for creating "original" documents and sales presentations from others' ideas. This is where legislation and laws come into play. Is it time to address these issues beyond basic copyright laws? Should the individual be responsible for their actions or should companies like Google, Wikipedia or others be held responsible for allowing postings of copyright materials?
Most would agree that more legislation is not the answer, but is some legislation needed to draw a line? The question becomes where is the line and who is going to be in charge of that line? When it comes to the Internet, those questions are gray and fuzzy. The concepts and ideas are intangible and when posted online, can even be difficult to attribute to an individual.
It seems that last weeks protest got the attention of people; I know in our school students and staff noticed that Wikipedia was not accessible. Will discussion continue outside of Washington now that the "protest" is over? Will lots of money and interest groups control what happens to the Internet as it does with many other aspects of our legislation? Discussion between the intellectual properties of education and corporation, and the Internet holders of those intellectual properties of Google and Wikipedia, and government officials need to continue this discussion. What makes this whole discussion difficult as a general citizen is who is representing whom? Ideally, the government should represent the people, but that is put into question constantly. We need to remember who the Internet properties represent because they have positioned themselves to say that they represent the individual. We need to be careful of that. We need to follow this and make our voices heard. The Internet is ingrained in our lives whether we like it or not and this is too important to put in the hands of stake holders who do not have us, the people, in mind. We are more important than the dollar, hopefully.
Knee-jerk legislation cannot pass because we all know, once legislation is in play, it is almost impossible to rescind, and it ends up constantly getting morphed with "improvements." Hopefully, discussion and collaboration can result in laws that do what they are intended to do: Protect those that use the Internet and ideas that are shared.
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Paperback books!!
We have unofficially announced January to be Paperback Book Month!! It just seems to be a good time of the year to promote those poor flimsy books that have an inferiority complex next to their shiny, hard-backed brothers and sisters. Paperback books have their place in a library and in our lives.
I discovered the usefulness of paperback books several years ago. I was working for Tony's Pizza Service delivering frozen pizzas to grocery stores, and I found myself waiting around all the time. It was a hurry up and wait kind of job. I found myself wanting to fill that time with something somewhat productive, but crossword puzzles and things like that weren't my thing. It was the days before smartphones, so any kind of social networking was out. So, I started carrying paperback books with me. I loved those books because most (those under 200 pages or so) could fit in my back pocket easily. When I found myself waiting for someone to open the back door of a store or to check in my product, which could take up to 10-20 minutes at times, I would pull out my book and read. I became known as the "book guy" by other delivery drivers and store employees. It was fun. I got to read and promote literacy because they all wanted to know what I was reading and if it was any good. It was great!! Paperback books had a place with me.
I don't encourage sticking a paperback book from a library in your back pocket, but paperback books are generally lighter, many times easier to read laying back, and many times lay open better than a hard cover book.
For the next two weeks in the high school library, if you check out a paperback book, fill out an entry form and you just might win a "sweet" prize.
I discovered the usefulness of paperback books several years ago. I was working for Tony's Pizza Service delivering frozen pizzas to grocery stores, and I found myself waiting around all the time. It was a hurry up and wait kind of job. I found myself wanting to fill that time with something somewhat productive, but crossword puzzles and things like that weren't my thing. It was the days before smartphones, so any kind of social networking was out. So, I started carrying paperback books with me. I loved those books because most (those under 200 pages or so) could fit in my back pocket easily. When I found myself waiting for someone to open the back door of a store or to check in my product, which could take up to 10-20 minutes at times, I would pull out my book and read. I became known as the "book guy" by other delivery drivers and store employees. It was fun. I got to read and promote literacy because they all wanted to know what I was reading and if it was any good. It was great!! Paperback books had a place with me.
I don't encourage sticking a paperback book from a library in your back pocket, but paperback books are generally lighter, many times easier to read laying back, and many times lay open better than a hard cover book.
For the next two weeks in the high school library, if you check out a paperback book, fill out an entry form and you just might win a "sweet" prize.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)