homework.

writing prompt:

Wikipedia. Your thoughts.

First, I would like to know what you think. Good? Bad? Do you use often? Do you avoid it? Do you trust it? Is it good that "we" create it? Is it bad that “we” create it? Can unnamed authors and editors be credible? Post your answer in your journal.

Second, find an entry related to the upcoming presidential election (it can be anything: candidates, Electoral College, voting fraud, conventions, debates, as long as it is related.) Post the url to the site in your journal. Tell me something you did not know about the topic that you learned from the entry.

Third, use Google to find a credible site on the web dealing with the same topic. Post the url to your journal. What makes the source credible?

Finally, tell me which one you like better. Why?

You should be able to complete this in three to four paragraphs. English 01 standards hold here, well written entries only.

my response:

wikipedia is a phenomenal idea. I love the fact that anybody can edit a certain page about a specific topic because it always keeps you guessing whats right or wrong! its refreshing!!! it is such an excitement to wonder if your doctorates thesis is actually based on credible information. in all honesty and seriousness, wikipedia is great for quick information, although it is more than plausible to obtain false information iterated by an unreliable source. i have taken the chance to use wikipedia as a source before in prior essays or arguments, and it has never let me down. I guess its really a matter of gullibility in the reader. I read once that "steve-o" (you know... the idiot from that suitably titled tv show/movie) was dead. then, i saw him like a week later on some dumb interview. it made me wonder if he had a stunt double. but even more than that, it made me wonder how old and pre-recorded the interview was, considering i was fed lies that my entire life's idol was dead. but in even more honesty, and seriousness, wikipedia is a horrendous idea. burn it to the ground. how irresponsible is it of us to lead poor young minds on with such volitile information as the great "steve-o's" death. Thats the kind of harsh reality that causes addiction. Im sure it was all a marketing ploy by steve-os agent to get people to watch his show with his froggy voice. wikipedia serves no explicitly reliable good to the world, besides the convenience of finding information. although, looking up actors and movies to find out origins and past roles is more convenient in my opinion than on imdb.com.

in response to the second prompted question of this assignment, i have here a wikipedia article that is the pinnacle of political success ; a list of the governers from the great, independent, self-sustaining state of alaska. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Governors_of_Alaska. notice how not one of those names on the list is important in any way at all.the guys who were governor from 1945 til about 1985 had it the worst, every once in awhile they actually had to glance west in the direction of Russia to make sure there werent and red armies coming across the icy abyss that is the unwanted bering sea. that affects the current election in the regards that sarah palin, being the wonderfully experienced potential vice president that she is, hails from a state that has offered nothing but gold rushes since the 1890s. she has had no trials or tribulations as governor besides the occasional commercial about polar bears, which is really only on air to remind us that Alaska DOES, in fact, exist. The only REAL annoyance shes had in office is slapping oil drilling activists away out of her hair. It just seems to me as if John McCain is advertising himself to a certain demograph of people, women of course. I think its a gimmick and unoriginal and only used because logically and ideally, he cant compete with Barack Obama as an intellectual leader, so McCain turns to Obama's skin tone and sees it as an adaptable clever marketing technique. if you want my honest opinion, neither candidate is suitable enough for me to make an outright decision on, so im going to trust myself to not vote and leave the election to the people who it really matters to, the people who need a beacon of hope and promise in this world. it is my personal volition to never vote in an election until somebody who has experienced the ugly side of life runs for office. why would i trust my future and the nations future to one or the other trust fund baby when they are the epitome of everything i hate?

as far as non objective opinions, wikipedia is not reliable, as it always written by a source that is partisan in one form or another. I believe that a person can only form a logical factual opinion through the culmination of events through multiple sources and types of media. since this is a journal entry, i am not following certain formats too well. but journals tend to be more freeform, so im doing what i can with the pen and the canvas. if you get bored in the library, you can check out my blog at ryanxalves.blogspot.com. i write what i feel in there too, and im sure you can look down on my punitive 19 year old existence from a disdainful height adequately on there.


its been a pleasure, erin..

RYAN.


















drunk homework rules.