"The Night of Melvyn's Murder" is an engaging web project that describes the activities of numerous people on the night of a man named Melvyn's homicide. I'm not sure whether the small stories are clues meant to point to the culprit, or if the project is meant to be a brilliant feat to be marveled at rather than solved. In any case, the layout of information--a network of people connected to each other through linked activities--is both dizzying and impressive.
When I read the first bit of story, I was a little bit confused as to what I was meant to do. After clicking on one of the names in the story, though, I quickly discovered both how to interact with the project and exactly how vast it was. It's the sort of thing that makes a person want to create an information web to keep all of the information straight (or maybe I'm just OCD). Every time I started to think that I had nearly read every person's story, five new characters would present themselves.
I do think that this is the sort of project that's far easier to create than it is to read and comprehend, like how a necklace can become impossibly knotted without much effort, then take an hour to fix. The complexity of it is great, and I'm tempted to sit down and actually try to find out whether the murderer can be found, or if Melvyn and the circumstances of his murder are even explained.
Monday, March 28, 2011
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Essay -- First Draft
Photo-editing software, such as Photoshop or GIMP, has achieved popularity and notoriety in recent years. But photo manipulation is not a new phenomenon--pictures have been altered since the 1800s, when photographs were invented. Depending on the way in which it is used, photo editing can be a positive tool that merely creates enhanced photos, or a negative tool that attempts to alter reality either intentionally or unintentionally, leading to the public's distrust of photography as a source of truth.
Since photography began in the 1800s, photos have been altered. An early example of this editing is a photograph of General Ulysses S. Grant during the American Civil War which was revealed to be a composite of three separate images. Grant’s head was taken from one photo, the body and horse from another, and the background image from a third. Manipulation of historical photos is one type of photo editing that is generally dishonest and damaging to the historical record, especially when original copies of the photos in question are not readily available and preserved.
CNN was recently criticized for damaging the historical record when it edited a photo that other news organizations released unaltered. CNN blurred the faces of a group of men behind a news correspondent that was assaulted soon after the photo was taken. Many people criticized CNN for altering the photo, saying that they had "unethically tampered with a historic photographic record." CNN defended its decision, explaining that they blurred the crowd's faces because they had no way of knowing whether the people in the photograph were the same people who assaulted the correspondent.
This type of photo manipulation, done to protect the individuals in the picture, does not harm the historical record since many other news organizations released the unaltered photograph and there is no reason to believe that the original will become unavailable. Also, the blurring of faces was done with good reason, did not change the photo’s meaning, and did not misrepresent the situation within the photograph.
Since photography began in the 1800s, photos have been altered. An early example of this editing is a photograph of General Ulysses S. Grant during the American Civil War which was revealed to be a composite of three separate images. Grant’s head was taken from one photo, the body and horse from another, and the background image from a third. Manipulation of historical photos is one type of photo editing that is generally dishonest and damaging to the historical record, especially when original copies of the photos in question are not readily available and preserved.
CNN was recently criticized for damaging the historical record when it edited a photo that other news organizations released unaltered. CNN blurred the faces of a group of men behind a news correspondent that was assaulted soon after the photo was taken. Many people criticized CNN for altering the photo, saying that they had "unethically tampered with a historic photographic record." CNN defended its decision, explaining that they blurred the crowd's faces because they had no way of knowing whether the people in the photograph were the same people who assaulted the correspondent.
This type of photo manipulation, done to protect the individuals in the picture, does not harm the historical record since many other news organizations released the unaltered photograph and there is no reason to believe that the original will become unavailable. Also, the blurring of faces was done with good reason, did not change the photo’s meaning, and did not misrepresent the situation within the photograph.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Wikipedia & Wikimedia
The Wikimedia page was surprising to me--I didn't know that there were so many official wikis from the Wikimedia Foundation. I knew about Wikipedia, and had heard about the Wiktionary, but I didn't know about Wikiquote, Wikiversity, or any of the other wikis listed on the page.
Something that I found interesting was the level of distrust that many people, like librarians, seem to have for Wikipedia, versus the apparent reliability of its information, which is comparable to Encyclopædia Britannica. I thought that there was an interesting point made on the Reliability of Wikipedia page: that even if the information on Wikipedia is policed by every person in the world, not every person has a degree in the subject matter that is being edited. That's a good point to make, especially considering Wikipedia's firm stance on not being a place for original thought, which is repeated throughout their policy pages. While it is their strict policy, not everyone who edits Wikipedia is going to read that statement or adhere to it. With so many people accessing Wikipedia every day, the information will likely be cleaned up before many people see it, but the risk is still a constant threat to the site's credibility.
I like that Wikipedia is specific about what it is not, and that they're firm about not being a censored website as long as the content provided is relevant to its article. They're much more reliable and credible if they don't remove information purely because it is offensive to some people.
Overall, I'm still undecided about whether Wikipedia is a credible source of information. While its standards are high, the site is still vast and any false information that is provided may not be caught in a timely manner if very few people visit a page. I wouldn't cite Wikipedia as an academic source or in an argument, but I would go there for a general overview of a topic, and I'd definitely take advantage of its cited sources.
I do use Wikipedia pretty often in general searches for facts about something that isn't terribly important but that I need information about. I use it as a preliminary research source a lot, to get background information before I search more specific websites. Professors generally say not to use it as an academic source, but a few allow it for general information.
People probably write for Wikipedia because a particular topic interests them or because they have some knowledge about it. Since anyone can edit or add information, it creates a collaborative atmosphere where, if people see inaccurate or incomplete information, they can impact the article immediately and directly. I have a friend who is one of their official editors, and he basically reviews articles that have been edited to make sure that the edits are okay. He doesn't get paid for it, but he has special access to information about which articles have been edited recently.
Something that I found interesting was the level of distrust that many people, like librarians, seem to have for Wikipedia, versus the apparent reliability of its information, which is comparable to Encyclopædia Britannica. I thought that there was an interesting point made on the Reliability of Wikipedia page: that even if the information on Wikipedia is policed by every person in the world, not every person has a degree in the subject matter that is being edited. That's a good point to make, especially considering Wikipedia's firm stance on not being a place for original thought, which is repeated throughout their policy pages. While it is their strict policy, not everyone who edits Wikipedia is going to read that statement or adhere to it. With so many people accessing Wikipedia every day, the information will likely be cleaned up before many people see it, but the risk is still a constant threat to the site's credibility.
I like that Wikipedia is specific about what it is not, and that they're firm about not being a censored website as long as the content provided is relevant to its article. They're much more reliable and credible if they don't remove information purely because it is offensive to some people.
Overall, I'm still undecided about whether Wikipedia is a credible source of information. While its standards are high, the site is still vast and any false information that is provided may not be caught in a timely manner if very few people visit a page. I wouldn't cite Wikipedia as an academic source or in an argument, but I would go there for a general overview of a topic, and I'd definitely take advantage of its cited sources.
I do use Wikipedia pretty often in general searches for facts about something that isn't terribly important but that I need information about. I use it as a preliminary research source a lot, to get background information before I search more specific websites. Professors generally say not to use it as an academic source, but a few allow it for general information.
People probably write for Wikipedia because a particular topic interests them or because they have some knowledge about it. Since anyone can edit or add information, it creates a collaborative atmosphere where, if people see inaccurate or incomplete information, they can impact the article immediately and directly. I have a friend who is one of their official editors, and he basically reviews articles that have been edited to make sure that the edits are okay. He doesn't get paid for it, but he has special access to information about which articles have been edited recently.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Revised Abstract
Photo-editing software, such as Photoshop or GIMP, has achieved popularity and notoriety in recent years. But photo manipulation is not a new phenomenon--pictures have been altered since the 1800s, when photographs were invented. Depending on the way in which it is used, photo editing can be a positive tool that merely creates enhanced photos, or a negative tool that attempts to alter reality either intentionally or unintentionally, leading to the public's distrust of photography as a source of truth.
This paper includes a brief background of photo editing and explores its various uses throughout history. It also explains some of the ways in which photos can be 'enhanced' or altered with photo editing software. It has an emphasis on the positive and negatives ways in which photo manipulation can be used, including examples of each type for analysis and comparison.
Photo editing has received a bad reputation, and with good reasons. This paper talks about not only the ways in which the technology can be abused, but also the ways it can be used to present a more accurate, useful picture.
--------------------
Annotations can be found on the right side of the page via the 'Annotations' link.
-
-
This paper includes a brief background of photo editing and explores its various uses throughout history. It also explains some of the ways in which photos can be 'enhanced' or altered with photo editing software. It has an emphasis on the positive and negatives ways in which photo manipulation can be used, including examples of each type for analysis and comparison.
Photo editing has received a bad reputation, and with good reasons. This paper talks about not only the ways in which the technology can be abused, but also the ways it can be used to present a more accurate, useful picture.
--------------------
Annotations can be found on the right side of the page via the 'Annotations' link.
-
-
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)