This Blog will comprise students putting together their papers for their final assignment to discuss whether Web 2.0 creates local conversations or is simply a place where we can find people who agree with everything we say.
Monday, November 16, 2009
What's this paper all about?
Before posting the first draft of your essay, tell me what this paper is about? What are we, as a class, trying to establish, better yet, what do we or should we hope to accomplish with this paper?
This paper is about the two differing viewpoints on web 2.0, and which opinion we agree with. Steven Johnson praises web 2.0 for letting average people be the experts, while Brian Williams worries about the consequences of being such a "me-centered" generation. I agree with Johnson, and I hope to prove that the web is a valuable resource when used responsibly. Man is always progressing and we as a society are better off for many of these inventions that were not available to generations before.
For this paper, we will discuss the two sides of how web 2.0 is beneficial and how it is not. Johnson discusses how web 2.0 gives normal people the opportunity to discuss their important information to the public. Williams discusses how web 2.0 may be a distraction from the local news or information beneficial to your health or life. You will further analyze it by discussing which position you agree with and by providing evidence. I agree with both of these arguments but when i look at my personal usage, I may lean towards Williams argument a little more. For this paper I would like to accomplish having a strong argument that properly discusses my side to full detail. I would like for it to be organized and understandable for readers.
In this paper, we are writing about whether or not we agree with Steven Johnson or Brian Williams. Stenven Johnson believes that Web 2.0 is positive and gives people a chance to report on local issues. Brian Williams thinks that Web 2.0 is not entirelly beneficial and people are just choosing to pay attention to things that already agree with our viewpoints. With this paper, we should be able to examine and decide what we think Web 2.0 is doing for the community. Either Web 2.0 is helping people reach out to their communities and disscuss stories that the media is failing to cover or Web 2.0 is purely a place for people to become more self envolved and users are not growing due to lack of exploration of other viewpoints. I agree with Williams and want to show people that Web 2.0 is creating a society of selfish individuals who only focus on the here and now and are completely uninterested in learning about new topics or viewpoints.
Nancy Alvarado: This paper is about two different argument based on Web 2.o whether it is beneficial or not. The paper discusses whether or not to agree with Johnson's claim or William's claim. I agree with Johnson's claim about web 2.0 being a good source just as long as is used properly. Web 2.0 creates a sense of community which can be beneficial.
Virginia Medrano: In this paper we are arguing whether we agree with Johnson or William's claim. That is if whether Web 2.0 is good or bad. I believe that the reason we are writing this paper is because it is something we use daily and it is a very controversial subject. I lean towards agreeing with Johnson when he says it is beneficial.
Kristal Larson: The paper we are writing is about taking either Johnson or William's side on Web 2.o and showing evidence to support our claim. Johnson is pro community which means he believes that Web 2.0 is beneficial in communities recieving information specific to them. While Williams point of view on this is that Web 2.0 makes people blind to whats really important and it can even be dangerous if used wrong. I am with Johnson and believed if used properly Web 2.0 is beneficial. We are trying to establish with this paper that Web 2.0, used with discretion, can be enjoyable as well as helpful.
The paper we are going to write is about two differnet view points on the subject called "Web 2.0". As a class we should accomplish the views of both side of the story good or bad.
Brittney Hoogervorst: We are trying to establish an argument about wether we feel the communication shift the internet has made is a positive or negative and what support have we found to prove this. We will be using two different articles by Johnson and William's and taking one author's point of view and supporting it or refuting it. Johnson feels this shift can be a positive change because it has allowed for those who are truly passionate about a subject to be the ones educating. However, Williams feels that this approach to communicating information via internet is a destructive one. William's feels it causes a user to become close minded and that information can be posted without being from a creditable source. What we can accomplish with this paper is to have a well rounded knowledge about the dangers and advantages of being from the technology generation. Most of my friends i know use the internet, phones etc. everyday; however, it isn't often that we stop to think about how this radical change in the internet world specifically can be effecting us.
Ariana Mesa: This paper is about the concept of Web 2.0. We have been asked to find evidence that supports our argument on whether or not we agree with Johnson (that Web 2.0 is a positive thing) or Williams, the opposing view. As a class we hope to accomplish the skill of blog writing through a clear, argumentative essay regarding which author we agree with.
We are writing this paper to agree with or argue that Web 2.0 is benficial to its users and is a good idea.
ReplyDeleteAnd what do you hope to accomplish with this paper, Mike? Do you think Web 2.0 is great as it is, or could it be a better tool?
ReplyDeleteThis paper is about the two differing viewpoints on web 2.0, and which opinion we agree with. Steven Johnson praises web 2.0 for letting average people be the experts, while Brian Williams worries about the consequences of being such a "me-centered" generation. I agree with Johnson, and I hope to prove that the web is a valuable resource when used responsibly. Man is always progressing and we as a society are better off for many of these inventions that were not available to generations before.
ReplyDeleteFor this paper, we will discuss the two sides of how web 2.0 is beneficial and how it is not. Johnson discusses how web 2.0 gives normal people the opportunity to discuss their important information to the public. Williams discusses how web 2.0 may be a distraction from the local news or information beneficial to your health or life. You will further analyze it by discussing which position you agree with and by providing evidence. I agree with both of these arguments but when i look at my personal usage, I may lean towards Williams argument a little more. For this paper I would like to accomplish having a strong argument that properly discusses my side to full detail. I would like for it to be organized and understandable for readers.
ReplyDeleteIn this paper, we are writing about whether or not we agree with Steven Johnson or Brian Williams. Stenven Johnson believes that Web 2.0 is positive and gives people a chance to report on local issues. Brian Williams thinks that Web 2.0 is not entirelly beneficial and people are just choosing to pay attention to things that already agree with our viewpoints. With this paper, we should be able to examine and decide what we think Web 2.0 is doing for the community. Either Web 2.0 is helping people reach out to their communities and disscuss stories that the media is failing to cover or Web 2.0 is purely a place for people to become more self envolved and users are not growing due to lack of exploration of other viewpoints. I agree with Williams and want to show people that Web 2.0 is creating a society of selfish individuals who only focus on the here and now and are completely uninterested in learning about new topics or viewpoints.
ReplyDeleteNancy Alvarado:
ReplyDeleteThis paper is about two different argument based on Web 2.o whether it is beneficial or not. The paper discusses whether or not to agree with Johnson's claim or William's claim. I agree with Johnson's claim about web 2.0 being a good source just as long as is used properly. Web 2.0 creates a sense of community which can be beneficial.
Virginia Medrano:
ReplyDeleteIn this paper we are arguing whether we agree with Johnson or William's claim. That is if whether Web 2.0 is good or bad. I believe that the reason we are writing this paper is because it is something we use daily and it is a very controversial subject. I lean towards agreeing with Johnson when he says it is beneficial.
Kristal Larson:
ReplyDeleteThe paper we are writing is about taking either Johnson or William's side on Web 2.o and showing evidence to support our claim. Johnson is pro community which means he believes that Web 2.0 is beneficial in communities recieving information specific to them. While Williams point of view on this is that Web 2.0 makes people blind to whats really important and it can even be dangerous if used wrong. I am with Johnson and believed if used properly Web 2.0 is beneficial. We are trying to establish with this paper that Web 2.0, used with discretion, can be enjoyable as well as helpful.
The paper we are going to write is about two differnet view points on the subject called "Web 2.0". As a class we should accomplish the views of both side of the story good or bad.
ReplyDeleteBrittney Hoogervorst:
ReplyDeleteWe are trying to establish an argument about wether we feel the communication shift the internet has made is a positive or negative and what support have we found to prove this. We will be using two different articles by Johnson and William's and taking one author's point of view and supporting it or refuting it. Johnson feels this shift can be a positive change because it has allowed for those who are truly passionate about a subject to be the ones educating. However, Williams feels that this approach to communicating information via internet is a destructive one. William's feels it causes a user to become close minded and that information can be posted without being from a creditable source. What we can accomplish with this paper is to have a well rounded knowledge about the dangers and advantages of being from the technology generation. Most of my friends i know use the internet, phones etc. everyday; however, it isn't often that we stop to think about how this radical change in the internet world specifically can be effecting us.
Ariana Mesa:
ReplyDeleteThis paper is about the concept of Web 2.0. We have been asked to find evidence that supports our argument on whether or not we agree with Johnson (that Web 2.0 is a positive thing) or Williams, the opposing view. As a class we hope to accomplish the skill of blog writing through a clear, argumentative essay regarding which author we agree with.
Posting at 7:26 pm with prompt at the top belongs to Jasmine Najar ... sorry.
ReplyDelete