WIKIPEDIA

Wikipedia can be a very reliable and unreliable source depending on the article you read. When researching topics that I am familiar with, this is what I had to report.

"Simsbury, CT"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simsbury

Simsbury is my hometown in the United States. I decided to research that first because, living their my entire life, I know much about. Most of what the article had to say about the history seemed fairly accurate. All the information about its settlement is true for the most part, but some of the details listed have been debated on whether they are entirely true. For instance it reports that the original settlers left because of all the surrounding Native Americans, and that when they returned the entire city had been burned down to the ground. When they came back, they apparently could not find the exact location because there were no more landmarks. From my understanding of Simsbury's history, it seems that this has been debated. However much of the facts that the articles give are directly cited from census and official goverment information. In addition, while it gave much information it left some things out that I could contribute. For instance under "Annual Events" it lists a few but I can think of more annual fests that are not included. However, overall it is a very accurate article with only a few possible faults.

"The Beatles"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_beatles

I chose to research my second topic on the band The Beatles because they are one of my all time favorite bands. This article seemed extremely accurate. It is no surprise because, a topic that is so widespread and popular as The Beatles is bound to be under a lot of scrutiny and checked for accuracy. I think when it comes to less popular or less known topics is when there are bound to be more errors. Everything about this article seemed accurate as far as I could tell, from the band's history, studio recordings, influences, controversies, etc. There were solid facts to back the article and even direct quotes from band memebers themselves. I personally could not think of anything to change about this article and I believe it to be accurate as well as interesting.

Walter Benjamin-"Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction"

Yes. Indeed. According to Walter Benjamin, contemporary digital media can be said to have lost a true sense of artistic uniqueness. Benjamin believed that art made by skilled professionals was special because it had a true sense of the time and place that it was created. The original piece in itself held a history to it that included countless circumstances which led to its creation.
Benjamin argues that a photo shopped image, for example, loses all artistic value because it is merely an image produced by a machine that virtually anyone could create. It loses the requirement of skill and devotion from the artist and is basically just a creation of technology rather than human talent.
Digital things according to Benjamin lose the sense of "aura." He uses this term to describe a sense of profound appreciation for something that can only be triggered by a true and original piece of art. Benjamin believes that anything reproduced or altered mechanically loses this sense of originality, creativity, and overall uniqueness, and therefore holds no true "aura."
I personally do not fully agree with Walter Benjamin's view on art losing value in the digital age. Though it some ways this is true, for example simply copying or slightly altering some type of art digitally might cheapen it, I feel that there can also be exceptions. I believe an artist can create a totally unique and original piece of art, whether it be visual, audio, etc., through the means of digital technology while keeping it strictly through the forces of his/her own creativity. Just because technology can aid in art doesn't necessarily mean that the media in itself completely depreciates its value or sense of aura.

Scavenger Hunt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

1. Who was the creator of the infamous "lovebug" computer virus?

Onel de Guzman

2. Who invented the paper clip?

Johaan Valer

3. How did the Ebola virus get its name?

Ebola River

4. What country had the largest recorded earthquake?

Chile

5. In computer memory/storage terms, how many kilobytes in a terabyte?

1,073,741,824

6. Who is the creator of email?

Ray Tomlinson

7. What is the storm worm, and how many computers are infected by it?

Trojan virus working against Windows.

8. If you wanted to contact the prime minister of australia directly,
what is the most efficient way?

email

9. Which Brisbane-based punk band is Stephen Stockwell (Head of the School
of Arts) a member of?

The Black Assasains

10. What does the term "Web 2.0" mean in your own words?

A more effective and proficient way of using the web and networking.






-Search engines rank the stuff they find on the internet by judging the quality of the website and the popularity of it. For instance if one were to search "file sharing," a more popular than non-popular file sharing website would come up. By making your search very title specific you can get a more accurate result of what you are trying to find. Using quotations in your search and minimizing the amount of unnecessary words plays a key role in reducing non-useful information. Athough I find wikipedia and google to be the best tools, search engines such as Yahoo and AskJeeves work well also. Whenever possible, it can be a great help to use actual library databases to find scholarly articles for much more specific and in-depth research.