Wikipedia Vs. Britannica

I chose to do my research on the city of Chicago, because my "hidden jewel" could not be found on neither Wikipedia nor Britannica. It's important to note before I begin comparing and contrasting the two that I believe that Wikipedia is a wonderful tool - when used wisely. Entries may be edited, but that is part of what makes it great. As with the Chicago entry, each of the 81 sources listed has extensive knowledge about the city - many of whom have written books on the city or aspects of the city. Not only is it clear who the sources are, but I can choose to read what I believe is reliable, or not read what I feel is unreliable.
The Britannica article cites no author or source given - other than itself. Although it is purely fact-based, the encyclopedia got it from somewhere. The dates that each article post are close together, but again, Britannica cites only itself as a source, whereas Wikipedia has cited many sources. When there are no authors or links to source material it's very hard to trust the information given. The Wikipedia entry includes sources like the Census Bureau, and Chicago Police Department news releases. Britannica only cites itself. The Britannica article contains links to other articles. The other articles, however, also contain no other sources. So, trusting Britannica is based solely upon the fact that it is an encyclopedia. The one link that I will credit Britannica for having is the "Expand Your Research" link. The problem, though, is that a whole new search gets started. When one clicks on one of the 81 sources on Wikipedia one is brought to the article in question, where yet more sources are given. The Britannica article contains links to about ten other articles, whereas the Wikipedia entry contains hundreds of links to other articles. The information given is pretty much the same. The Wikipedia article, however, covers a far more vast array of information. Wikipedia offers all of the information about neighborhoods - with a few left out - on one page.
The Wikipedia article also offers a discussion for Wikipedia readers. Although this is controversial it can sometimes improve the article. For instance, one woman suggested that the article needed to contain a more extensive coverage of the ethnic neighborhoods, which only improves the articles coverage of the city. Britannica does not have this option. So, readers are not even able to suggest a change to the page. Yes, anyone can edit the page on Wikipedia BUT not everything is displayed. Because it is so commonly used when something inaccurate is listed it is usually taken off of the website within the day.
I feel that both are useful resources, but Wikipedia is far more convenient and easy to understand. Britannica had a great short summary of the city, but Wikipedia provided a depth of information that Britannica did not come close to matching. I liked Wikipedia a lot more. Although it can be used incorrectly, one just has to realize that there are ways of reading Wikipedia so that the information being read is accurate. The sources are listed, and if a source seems somehow unreliable then the information does not need to be used. Wikipedia just covered Chicago far more extensively than Britannica, which is what I was looking for.

What's the difference between America and Americans?

Mark Hertsgaard raises this question in his book The Eagle's Shadow: Why America Fascinates and Infuriates the World. For the most part I agree with Hertsgaard analysis of these two components, but I also feel that Hertsgaard gives the American people too much credit in some cases. He blames the government for our lack of knowledge in many cases. But, if I, an 18 year old college student, can find ways of accessing the information that he feels we are lacking, then why can't other Americans?
The American Government is purposeful, hypocritical, and manipulative. Americans are ignorant (by choice), selfish, and (also) manipulative. It's hard to outline exactly the differences when so often the line is blurry. For the most part, Americans shape the American Government and vice versa. Blah Blah Blah...More later!

Field Trip!

Even though I've been downtown Chicago quite often, it was really fun to go there with new historical knowledge of the city. Taylor street was, as usual, beautiful. All around the UIC campus is the peaceful buzz of learning. Since we were there during school and working hours there weren't many people strolling the sidewalks. Here and there there were students passing between classes or an office worker on his/her lunch-break, but for the most part the streets were quiet. The only disappointment was that our destination, Mario's Italian Ice, was closed for the season. We couldn't figure out why since the temperature was in the upper eighties, but none the less it was closed.

The quaint Little Italy neighborhood is a living example of the history of Chicago. As we've read in the text and talked about in class, ethnic neighborhoods in Chicago have been ever-changing. There were still quite a few Italian restaurants, markets, etc. in the area, but we also noticed that many of the old Italian places had been turned into Thai places. On the end of Taylor Street closest to the UIC campus there was at least one Thai restaurant for every Italian restaurant, if not more. I happen to love Thai food, so for me this was not a problem, but we began to wonder how the Italian people who have lived there for generations feel about this shift in restaurant demographics. My new knowledge of the city has truly brought back to life its history.



Mario's



Jenni, Me (Rachel), and Alex in front of Mario's. There wasn't anyone else around, so we had to take the picture ourselves!



Waiting to catch the Blue Line at UIC-Halsted stop.

Who's to Blame for Academic Dishonesty?

Cheating means something different to everyone, which became clear during the class discussion on Thursday. It was not only the students that had different definitions of cheating, but also the authors of the four articles in question. Furthermore, the authors disagreed quite passionately about who was to blame for the students’ cheating. Bill Puka, author of “Student Cheating,” suggested that professors were to blame for making it too easy to be dishonest. Although I was speaking with a group of students, the consensus was against Puka.
Although my group considered all forms of cheating bad, they also thought that plagiarism transcended the other forms in “badness.” Puka recommended that professors make students hand in multiple copies of essays in order to prevent plagiarism. The group rebutted this by saying, “what if the first copy is plagiarized and the student simply makes a few changes on the second and third drafts?” Throughout the discussion the group was persistent in blaming students for plagiarism.
One group thought that a good way to prevent students from cheating was to make them sign a student contract. Many people felt that students who are willing to cheat would not be suddenly bounded by a contract. The contract, however, is also a protection for the institutions.
One of the articles claimed that institutions were to blame for academic dishonesty. Often times students are viewed as customers who should be satisfied, rather than students who should learn both from the classroom, and from their mistakes. Many of those institutions feel obligated to side with the student in question because of the fear of losing the money the student brings in. So, by making a student sign a legal contract, it safeguards the institution from feeling obligated to keep the customer.
My father is a professor at a small private liberal arts college. He caught two students with the same paper one time, and as a result they both failed the class. The ironic, part, he thought was that one of the students had actually done the work. He had a solid hunch as to which student had chosen to do the material, but felt it was his moral responsibility to punish them both. He also felt that the student who had done the work was blackmailed into sharing his work. So, the question arose, “are both parties always responsible?” Our group decided that, under no circumstances, was it ok to share ones work.
All in all, we decided that there is no one to blame for cheating besides the students. Many of the institutional practices are not fair, but they are not to blame. The only person that can stop a student from plagiarizing is that student. The line of morality in student cheating is not as ambiguous as many think. The students are to blame.