professor makes the individual believe it to be true.

Transcription

1 Kevin Puszcz Professor Culik Outstanding introduction You clarify a genuine and point to the issues that will drive the paper Replaced: were Replaced: the Replaced: were Deleted: not credible but relevant and Today, 11:08 AM Replaced: they Today, 11:08 AM Deleted: are Composition October 2012 Plugged into the Semantic Web Credibility lies in the eye of the beholder, and through the web our intuition is distorted While searching and browsing resources of interest were we are unable to contextualize what it is we need because the information given to us is based on algorithmic signals Over time, we have adapted to utilizing search engines to hasten our access to knowledge of a given topic, but what we did not realize is the complexity of the parameters and multiple dimensions that algorithmic search engines have been built upon Without the an awareness of this complexity, were we are simply throwing human syntax into a search box However, what we need to do, is become aware of how search engines determine a source to be relevant rather than credible, and then not credible but relevant and also look further into how we determine a source credible When an individual is stimulated with a question, one would immediately think of a few different options to gather information and research a topic On the web s/he browses for information with hope that it will be credible, but they s/he is are often going to browse web sources that accommodates to them in various ways Tseng and Fogg (1999) identify four types of source credibility 1 Presumed credibility, where individuals make general assumptions about a source of information assuming that a friend will tell them the truth 2 Reputed Credibility, where a source of information is used because of the title of doctor or professor makes the individual believe it to be true

2 3 Surface credibility, where credibility is given based on the visuality of a website's layout 4 Experienced credibility, where the person judging credibility has first hand experience with the source These concepts guide our belief systems, which creates a personal connection that links the individual and the information together Were aware that humans make errors, and this occurs throughout each one of these forms of credibility [the following paragraph seems to be part of Today, 11:10 AM Today, 11:09 AM Replaced: of Today, 11:09 AM Today, 11:09 AM this one; can you eliminate the paragraph break?] Through presumed credibility, knowledge is based on assumptions of about a source, where the paradox is that the individual is not utilizing their own thoughts but relying on someone else s expertise, values, and judgment The great thing about being human is that we never start from scratch but that does not mean we should take it for granted because the other great thing is that we're able to construct new views and theories Within reputed credibility, there are plenty of ambiguous explanations that can be stated Today, 11:11 AM Today, 11:11 AM which make this an unacceptable measure of credible information For instance, even though a doctor is called a doctor, that doesn't necessarily mean that s/he was the valedictorian of her or his class or had devoted the time to analyze and deeply research one field or another Nowadays, you can acquire a doctorate in any field and the standards placed on each field vary, so credibility can be misinterpreted based on someone s title [eliminate paragraph break] The concept within the parameters of surface credibility have been investigated vaguely but enough to show the flaws within our senses or lack of logic when determining credibility From the Consumer Reports WebWatch research report, the study conducted had found that a site's overall visual appeal had guaged gauged a main factor in determining credibility Consumer Today, 11:11 AM Replaced: guaged credibility-related comments about visual design issues occurred with more frequency with web-

3 sites dedicated to finance, 546%, search engines, 526%, travel, 505%, and e-commerce sites, 462%, and less frequently when assessing health, 418%, news, 396%, and nonprofit, 394% By relying on the visual appeal of a source to determine credibility, knowledge isn't only being limited to one input but also misguided Yes, but now return to your claim and relate this to the Today, 11:12 AM larger idea; expand on the background issue Through experience credibility, one can only hope that the individual has an accurate interpretation of the knowledge With so much information being absorbed all at once, studies have noticed that faults in memories can hinder an accurate recollection of a past experience Karim Nader, a neuroscientist from McGill University notes, we tend to replay them over and over in our minds and in conversation with others with each repetition having the potential to alter them (2010) From the research and our own experiences, we are becoming aware that our memories can be hindered over time but also from the strain within our environment, showing that our ability to hold and maintain credible information consists of large faults Now iin 2005, science writer Joshua Foer went to cover the US Memory Championship, Today, 11:12 AM Replaced: Now i where people compete to remember pages upon pages of numbers or a particular sequence of cards, and a year later he was back as contestant Over a course of a year spent training his memory, he become the champion the following year During his speech Feats of Memory anyone can do he said, Over the last few millennia, we've invented a series of technologies that have made it progressively easier and easier for us to externalize our memories, for us to outsource this fundamental human capacity So what is it that's making us forget how to remember? Some of us are just stuck in this dilemma, where both our own faults and others

4 misleading us, have distorted our determination of credibility and knowledge Where do we go from here? If we look at how search engines provide information we must divulge the sequence of criteria built within the dimensions of algorithm One dimension is called personalization, some but not all search engines are built around this but among popular search engines this is one distinct way to give the individual information that tailors to them Through someones unique location, previous search results, computer specifications, and the kind of person that the algorithm diagnoses them to be, are some of the connections that this parameter uses to then provide links to web sources it determines useful to you Personally, I have a passion to know a little bit of everything and I think there are many others who are the same but how can an algorithm accommodate to those who are constantly bored within the world of the same and want something new or different This form of personalization should be completely avoided because what it does, is it isolates an individual within her or his own little bubble It strips away one's freedom to determine what is most important to them There s an interesting concept called xxxx?? memory where we remember not the content but rather the means by which or the place where we obtained the info With there being 200 million people out of the 311 million people in the US, plugged into the internet everyday Lets say that half of them determine credibility by the visual appearance of the information and are unaware of bias And lets pretend that just a third of all people do corrupted??????? not think for themselves, and lets say that Tseng and Fogg s sources of credibility are accurate And lets not forget the unfortunate faults within memory that are portrayed Now, just from those factors it appears that credible information is being distorted and our memory capacity is being misdiagnosed Not to mention, we are practically gambling with our futures and building a society based on dimensions of algorithms or statistics This is producing a semantically structured world where knowledge and creativity is no longer free Were limiting our way of creating, producing and providing knowledge in a singular path, but we are forgetting who we are By

5 Today, 11:17 AM controlling the path to credibility, we are abusing the path to knowledge and losing our excitement to discover new scientific theories If we make a few changes to the way we determine credibility To the way we use our memories To the way we access external sources of information and to the way we determine knowledge, we can create a new revolution Astonishing conclusion An entirely retrospective culture runs against creativity, innovation, change, discovery, etc I see the connections you re making, and they re tied to the nature of filter bubbles Notes All of us who come in contact daily with computers, identifying these types is useful, especially when pondering how computing systems gain or lose credibility Therefore, we propose four types of credibility: presumed; reputed; surface; and experienced Our intent in defining these categories is to provide new ways to think about (and a richer vocabulary for discussing) computer credibility to enhance our collective ability to research, design, and evaluate credible computers The overall assessment of computer credibility may rely on valuing all four types simultaneously Most people have so-called flashbulb memories of where they were and what they were doing when something momentous happened: the assassination of President John F Kennedy, say, or the explosion of the space shuttle Challenger (Unfortunately, staggeringly terrible news seems to come out of the blue more often than staggeringly good news) But as clear and detailed as these memories feel, psychologists find they are surprisingly inaccurate Through Joshua Foer s and many others who compete at the US memory championship, we are shown that the idea of having a trained, disciplined, and cultivated memory is not so foreign to us

6 Works cited Tseng, Shawn, and BJ Fogg "Credibility and Computing Technology" (nd): n pag May 1999 Web 2 Oct 2012 < p39-tsengpdf> "How Our Brains Make Memories" Smithsonian Magazine Greg Miller, May 2010 Web 07 Oct 2012< html> "Speakers Joshua Foer: Writer" Speakers Joshua Foer: Writer Joshua Foer, nd Web 13 Oct 2012 <