Please note that by posting online you are now a content provider and local online laws and regulations apply. For information on those laws and regulations, click here.

Tuesday, July 20

Yi Lin/Have new media changed our lives for the better?

New media may not have changed our lives for the better as the user-generated content may cause the problem of unreliability. People can express their views on various topics through the use of new media such as blogs, podcasts, forums, social networking websites and more. The credibility of information is an issue as many sources available are unverified. For example, the information on Wikipedia is written by people of the general public who may lack the knowledge and expertise in that area. Some information may be inaccurate as they are not vetted like the articles published on newspapers and books, the older of media. However, I believe that the users of new media are discerning users and will not blindly believe and all use the user-generated content. Netizens themselves are willing and able to verify information when taught how to do so. They can cross-reference the information found on the new media with the information found on the more reliable and renowned websites to ensure the information is correct. Also, with the help of google and yahoo, people can double check the content on the websites they find useful by going to other websites to look at the relevant content. The information would most likely be reliable if they coincide with one another. Thus, as long as people are able to make their own judgments and do not accept all the information found on the new media readily, the new media has definitely changed our lives for the better as we can get the information we want at our fingertips.

5 comments:

  1. Hi yilin!

    I agree with your stand that new media has still, changed our lives for the better despite the disadvantages that you've stated.

    Clear limitations stated and a good conclusion to the paragraph.

    "The information would most likely be reliable if they coincide with one another. "

    I don't really agree with this statement as some websites are still unreliable, even if they coincide with each other? Having two parties that say the same thing does not determine whether or not it's true, it just means that two people may share the same view on that issue. (eg on blogspot where information is user-generated)

    Other than that,
    well done!

    Lynn

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hey,
    good use of the OV+R structure. the elaboration is quite clear as well. However, more examples can be given and another thing is that content on yahoo and google can be inaccurate as well as it is also user-generated. Thus, one has to still check on the sources as well bef.ore believing it

    ReplyDelete
  3. PEERL is clear. maybe the rebuttal can be there are still many reliable sources?

    -leling:D

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think YiLin’s paragraph development had the structure of PEEL(eel). She used the OV tools to signal her stand clearly and her development paragraph has appropriate use of examples to support her points.
    Wen Rui

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yes I agree with Yilin's stand that most people are aware of user-generated information, and thus cross-reference with other sources.

    Perhaps in the rebuttal, you could add in that only a minority might believe in user-generated information, and this minority consists of the new users (such as children)?

    :)

    ReplyDelete