My Reflection

"Everyone is blogging" (Source:Google)

This was totally a new and wholesome experience to be able to produce something regarding issues in publishing and so forth as a “noob” blogger. The feeling of accomplishing this blogs is like a journey emplacing a few places that enables myself to learn the art of blogging that comprising of designing, writing, searching for resources, brainstorming and more. Hence, I guess I have at least “leveled up” my self from the beginner stage to a more qualified level after this daunting task that have not only widen my knowledge in the publishing issues from the information I found but also expose myself to various possibilities that a single matters could have. Generally, I have been taught that there are no single solutions to a single crisis but rather a few best way that combined together would make the perfect solution for a particular framework. In a nutshell, I hope I am able to learn more and more from other stuff to make sure my work could one day turning into one of the best amongst the best.

Wikipedia Vs Britannica

Wikipedia (Source:Google)

Britannica(Source:Google)

Goal!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Another spectacular goal from marvellous player David Villa have won Spain their match Vs Russia in Euro 2008, in contrast, this stiff and competitive football scenario is well portrayed in the ‘rivalry’ between Wikipedia Vs Britannica. Which of these two will finally won the ‘match of the minds and hearts’ of their audience? But before that, most essentially, what are Wikipedia and Brittanica?

Generally, Wikipedia is a FREE online encyclopedia whereby Wiki means ‘fast’ in Hawaiian word (What-is-what, 2008). In addition, it has always been the first stuff that comes to mind while searching for information. Furthermore, a person with an online connection could readily edit the information in Wikipedia as it is termed as “sum of public human knowledge” (What-is-what, 2008). In contrast, Britannica is an encyclopedia existing in both print and online that have been getting rare reviews regarding their validity of their information setting the path of reliable example (Terdiman, 2005). However, there is a cost incurred in order to get the information from this encyclopedia.

Wikipedia has always being criticised of portraying inaccurate and invalid results as anyone are able to edit the piece of data, as a result, could we really trust Wikipedia? According to Bosworth (2004), Wikipedia is bias and the coverage is not that comprehensive as some information regarding Putlizer prize winner James Mcperson are not published even thought he had an article regarding him. In addition, only Stephen Ambrose case is discussed in “Historians on the hot seat” while there are sixteen recent cases.

A study by Nature has illustrated that Britannica makes 2.92 mistakes per article whereby Wikipedia 3.86 (Terdiman, 2005). The number has proves to us that we need to look out on more or a few encyclopedia to get a better insight rather than trusting on one which make not so accurate. Wikipedia although may sometimes proves to be not so reliable, it can give us some basic knowledge and the starting ‘know how’ before we are able to find more valid information regarding the matters concerned. Morkes and Nielsen (1997) maintains that readers don’t want to be fed with false facts, thus, Wikipedia need to be able to work out on its validity as it is still the ultimate encyclopedia while searching for information as it is free.


References:

Bosworth, A, 1997, “What is Wikipedia and how does it treat history”, viewed 12th June 2008, <http://hnn.us/articles/8837.html>


Morkes, J. & Nielsen, J. 1997, ‘Concise, scannable, and objective: How to write for the web’, useit.com, viewed on 12th June 2008 <http://www.useit.com/papers/webwriting/writing.html>


Terdiman, D 2005, Study:Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica, CnetNew.com, viewed 12th June 2008,
<http://news.cnet.com/Study-Wikipedia-as-accurate-as-Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html?tag=item>

.
What is What, 2008, “What is Wikipedia”, viewed 12th June 2008,
<http://what-is-what.com/what_is/wikipedia.html>

Harry Potter – legal fansite?

"Lumus" (Source: Google)

“Lumus”, “Avada Kadavra”, “Expectro Pactronum” was some of the spells that are uttered from the fellow wizards from Hogwarts. In addition, it is certainly fabuluous to be able to imagine the way Harry Potter himself fly and play the Quiddith match with his Firebolt. Any fans of Harry Potter would certainly know all of this and even more whereby they are eager to write the way they feel into website, blogs and some into books. But is this ethical?

Well, in the eyes of J.K. Rowling, the author of Harry Potter, this is definitely not very ethical as she assumed that the fans are utilising and exploiting this opportunity to actually earn big bucks. J.K. Rowling and Warner Brothers sued the “Harry Potter Lexicon” when they are printing it into books claiming that those people are just repackage the stuff they did with the intention of making money unlike other free fan sites like Roswell, Star wars, and so on (New York Times, 2008).According to Wu (2008), fan guides are not illegal as it shows to us how the other party feel rather than the author itself which set a platform of healthy line between the jobs the authors delivers and what the others able to involve in.

In short, J.K. Rowling are not capable of suing the fansite as there are no such a law or regulation that stated fans are not able to express their ideas and feeling towards their novels or movies as they are not actually stealing or infringe the copyrights of J.K. Rowling. Hence, Harry Potter Lexicon is legally able to be existed and the fans could continue express their views and opinions towards the novels and movies.


References:
The New York Times 2008, 'Rowling To Testify In Trial Over Potter Lexicon', viewed at 12th June 2008, <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/books/14potter.html>


Wu, T. 2008, ‘J.K. Rowling’s Dark Mark: Why she should lose her copyright lawsuit against the Harry Potter Lexicon’, Slate, viewed on 12th June 2008 at <http://www.slate.com/id/2181776/#>

Youtube again? Ethical or unethical?

Marie Digby - The shining Star (Source: Google)

Youtube has always been the word of mouth either in Malaysia, Japan, Singapore or event at the rest of the world due to the fact that it has becoming part of the life of most of the people especially the generation y. This certainly make it into something that are needed daily, thus, it will make it having some flaws other that its own advantages itself. Generally, to refresh your minds, Youtube is the ideal platform for a person to post and share their video online making sure that people will kept updating of the happenings of the people around them.

The advantages of Youtube is certainly it is viewed daily by millions of people around the world, hence, singer such as Marie Digby who posted her videos onto the Youtube will get lots of viewer and in return, she got offered a contract by a recording company which certainly make it worthwhile to post her talented videso onto Youtube (MarieDigby, 2008).

In Contrast,being able to viewed by millions of people maybe its drawbacks as well. The posting of video that have directly insulted the Thai King certainly is one of the unwanted video that being posted making Youtube not as good as it looks like initially (Jones, 2007). The post of such videos will make millions of people mad making Youtube removing all of such movies at once.

In a nutshell, Youtube has it own distintiveness and drawbacks, thus, we need to use this tool appropriately to make the best out of it rather than to vandalise it which in return we may get ourselves into hot soups.


References:
Jones, A, EContent: Digital Content Strategies & Resources, YouTube’s Legal Issue Grow, viewed at 5th May 2008,<http://www.econtentmag.com/Articles/ArticleReader.aspx?ArticleID=39887>

Marie Digby Online 2008, Who is Marie Digby, viewed at 5th May 2008,<http://marie-digby.org/>

Stealing the limelight – Mobisodes

Sample of Mobisode (Source:Google)

The world barely unwind for a little while to take pleasure in the contemporary condition but rather kept on improving and innovating the recent entire stuff into a better tomorrow. It seems that innovation have certainly plays a very crucial role in the technology industry. This is due to the fact that we are now able to entertain ourselves anytime anywhere with the latest mobisodes that are portrayed in mobile phones. Consequently, the issue now is that will the mobisodes taking up the television limelight?

According to BBC News (2008), seasonal movies that consumes more than an hour normally are illustrated in big screens like television rather than mobile phone as it is very hard for the audience to concentrate Jack Bauer with his mission on such a small screen all day, it may make their lovely eyes suffered. Furthermore, the long usage of the mobile phone to watch movies will reduce the lifespan of the battery although the demand for the mobisodes is increasingly significant (Bughin, 2005).

The consumer today are utilizing their mobile phone as if it is their “personal assistant” that includes “photographer”, “entertainer” and so forth making it a trend for big companies like Vodafone to actually snatching the opportunity in offering 1 minute mobisodes in collaboration with Fox Entertainment Group such the mobisode namely 24 (USAToday, 2004).

Multimodality are illustrated through the mobisodes as they have portrayed the temporal composition of television (Kress and Van Leeuwan, 2006, p13) which is supported by Walsh (2006, p.24) who alwaysmaintains about the paradigm shift when we are being bombarded by multimodal text.

In a nutshell, mobisodes are the trend that are rising and willl eventually become one of the main activities during free time. This is true as South Korean can watch the mobisodes up to 90 minutes per day (BBC News, 2008)which certainly prove to us the potential of this mobisodes as an entertainment tool.


References:

BBC News 2008, 'Future of TV:The Production Company', viewed on 12th June 2008 <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6143350.stm>

Jacques Bughin, 2005, “Mobile broadcasting: red herring or big fish?”viewed 12th June 2008 < http://www.re-thinkingtv.com/downloadessay/1>

Kress & Van Leeuwen 2006, 'Multimodal Discourse: The Modes and Media of Contemporary Communication',John Benjamins Publishing Company, U.S.A.

USAToday, 2004, viewed 12th June 2008, <http://www.usatoday.com/tech/wireless/phones/2004-11-10-tv-for-mobile-phones_x.htm?csp=15>

Walsh M 2006, ‘'Textual shift”: examining the reading process with print, visual and multimodal texts’, Australian journal of language and literacy, vol. 29, no 1, pp. 24-37.