Newly discovered social media outlets

There are two social media outlets that I have never tried before until now; they are Twitter and Blogger. I have never used Twitter because I never saw the point. From my previous understanding people used it to post what they were thinking and that was it. I now have a better understanding of Twitter. I was able to set up an account and get started. I set up my account and started “following” people. This means that whatever they post will show up on my wall for me to view. What I found interesting was that I could follow many different types of things. I am currently following Alexander Ovechkin; who is a hockey player and ESPN. This is really interesting because just by following ESPN I can look at my wall and get current updates. Tonight it told me about the nerves happening going into game 6 and that the game was about to start. I like the fact that you can follow everything you like and it all appears on your news feed. I also like that you have the ability to un-follow people and not allow them to follow you. It gives a certain amount of privacy so that the only people that see what you post are the people you allow to see it. The other interesting aspect is that you can only post 140 characters. I know from being a Facebook user that people can post what feels like a book on your news feed about everything happening in their life. Twitter does not allow you to do that. Instead it forces you to keep what you are saying short and to the point. Lastly, I have never been a fan of using hash tag because I never saw the point. To use it just to use it I still don’t like. What I learned is that you can use the hash tag and be linked to pages and pictures that people post. That is a new and interesting feature. I just saw at my last Blue Jacket game that if you sent a tweet and did #CBJ than you would appear on the jumbo tron in the arena. This is a new way for the arena to interact without needing a camera running around.

The 2^nd social media outlet I have tried using within the last few months has been blogger. Blogger is a site where you setup a page and design it to your liking. Then you can post a blog, which can be about anything that you feel like posting about. Mine have been all about different aspects of social media and communication. If someone is out there looking for information on the subject they can read my information and continue to follow it if they like what I have to say. It is a way to get your thoughts about issues or subjects out for other people to see or view. Just like Twitter the site allows you to follow people and be followed so that you can keep up to date with their posts. It is another way of communicating with all different types of people.

Personally, I feel that Twitter is the site that is going to be most effective at reaching an audience. Blogging is a great way of getting information out but you have to specifically be looking for it. I am 26 years old and have heard about blogging for years but I had never done it and I have never known many people that have used it. It reaches a wide audience but mostly people who are researching information or blog regularly. Blogging seems to be more of a specific group of people instead of a variety of people. Twitter is something that people ranging from ages 10-80 are going to use. There is something on there for everybody it seems. You can search music, movies, celebrities, family, and the list just continues to go on. There is a large variety of Twitter that blogging doesn’t have. Plus, I feel people have a very short attention span in today’s world. That being said, saying something in 140 characters is going to grab people’s attention much more than 5 paragraphs; most people are too busy to read something that long.  I was just in a weekly HR meeting and Twitter was brought up. The SVP was asking if we were utilizing Twitter and Facebook because they were to important not to be using for hiring purposes. That shows to me that Twitter is a site that is can reach a wide variety of people. We are not focusing on areas that blog because it doesn’t have the same appeal. Businesses want catch phrases which work perfectly with the Twitter character rule of only using 140 letters. Phrases like now hiring or 50% off sale. I think ultimately Twitter has more to offer people. Both are good ways of communicating but Twitter is more in tune with today’s society and the fast paced world we live in.

This week I read an interesting article on how to evaluate credible resources. Next, I chose an online news article and tried to determine if I thought the information was credible based on the sources the author provided. This was a little trickier than I first thought it would be.

I chose an article from The Huffington Post (www.huffingtonpost.com) called What Can You Believe About 'Obamacare'? by Linda Bergthold. This article discusses multiple myths about the new health care and rather they are valid. Berthold (2013) discusses sources in her article and mentions how important it is to check out information for yourself. She wrote her article using hyperlinks so it allowed you to verify anything in her work that you may be questioning. As I followed these sources I found relevant information. The first link was to the Department of Labor website which discussed all about the Affordable Care Act. It seemed to be a decent, reliable source. All of her links took me to places that I could find where she retrieved her information from so that I could evaluate it for myself. The only link I saw a problem with was the link to "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act because it took me to a Wikipedia site. I know from previous experience with Wikipedia that although it can be helpful it may not be accurate. Anybody can post on Wikipedia about anything, I would have preferred a more credible source for the information regarding this subject. Overall, her article was full of useful information with credible sources to back her up (2012).

In the article that I read, Criteria to Evaluate the Credibility of WWW Resources, there are certain guidelines to follow to verify the accuracy of a website or a source. If we follow such guidelines we will be able to verify the accuracy of the source better than before. The article that I used was a good example of accurate & inaccurate sources according to this article. The guidelines include matters such as: contact information, up to date information, author biased, what kind of website is the information appearing on, and complete list of works cited page; just to name a few. Based on these guidelines, The Huffington Post article meets some positive criteria for accurate sourcing. For instance, according to the articles guidelines the information is reliable based on contact information and current information. The author has her contact information on the page and the information in her article is relevant and current. Almost every phrase and term was linked to a website that has credibility and is kept up to date. This is allowing us researching to be aware that the information is current. Also, the author doesn't appear to be biased at all. There are myths stated and some are agreed with and some are not but either way anything that is posted has a website or information to back it up. All and all this article seems reliable as does the author that wrote it. It is probably safe to assume that not all articles are going to meet all guidelines but this article did meet important ones.

There are so many different websites which is why it can be difficult to identify accurate information and sourcing. According to the article about evaluating criteria, there are different kinds of web sites such as: professional, homepage, and news. Knowing what kind of web site you are on can help you to identify what kind of information you are receiving (http://mason.gmu.edu/~montecin/web-eval-sites.htm). The main problem with web sites is that anybody can post information. Previously I mentioned that my author linked information to a Wikipedia site. This site cannot truly be trusted because anybody can post on it. I went to nursing school with a girl who posted that she was a rock star and it stayed on wikipedia for over a year. This is a perfect example of how allowing anybody to post online can lead to false information. The Wikipedia site Linda Bergthold choose did seem to have very accurate information but because of the site it is on it is still questionable. I feel that through mass media unrestricted web publishing will continue to cause inaccurate and non-trustworthy information. If there is not going to be a restriction on who can post information than there could potentially always be false information. The only way to have mass media progress more towards accurate information is to restrict who can post about specific subject matters. If you do not meet the requirements than you can not post. The resource article for class clearly discusses the different web sites, different domain names, etc. Certain domains when I was in school were safe to use such as .edu and .gov. Now they are not because the web site is not restricted and anybody can post. If we would prevent false information from going on web sites than we could identify more easily the accurate and current information. Until we do something to prevent the false information nobody will be able to truly identify fact from fiction. Mass media will continue to be populated with false information if something does not prevent anything from being posted. In my opinion, this is where the issue lies.

Resources:

http://mason.gmu.edu/~montecin/web-eval-sites.htm

Bergthold, L. (2013). What Can You Believe About 'Obamacare'?
http: www.huffingtonpost.com/linda-bergthold/what-can-you-believe-abou_b_4082121.html

COM 510 - Discovering Social Media

Facebook is my addiction when it comes to social media. I am on it daily, and it is not really to see anything specific, but more as a tool when I am bored to pass the time. Anytime I am bored I find myself wandering to my Facebook page to see what my friends are doing, read about people's daily lives, etc. These are the things I see on a daily basis when I log in to Facebook. Generally, when I am on Facebook I am on my IPhone so I don't see as much as I do when I log in to my computer. I've always viewed Facebook as a social network where you keep up with friends and family through the news feed. I can't even say when the last time I logged in with my actual computer was. So today I decided to log on and see if I saw a different view of Facebook than what I normally see.

When I log in on the laptop it is like I'm viewing a whole other world. On the right are the crazy amount of games that are supposedly popular right now. What caught my eye on the right was the section with videos that say sponsors. This caught my attention because I have never noticed it before. I know Facebook is ran by people but generally I only pay attention to the people I am friends with and what they post. I've never thought of Facebook as a source of advertisement for large companies. As I clicked on the sponsors page there is an add for a college of nursing, how workouts help burn fat, the newest TV show to watch and the best movies coming out and the list goes on.

This made me think. Is the Pediatric Dentistry of Central Ohio really the best place to go. Their add says they offer pleasant visits and always with a smile. Do they really always offer this kind of service? Do they always have happy children leaving as their add suggests? Maybe they do but it doesn't change the fact that there is no way to know. All that I really know is that they are being advertised by Facebook for a reason. Nobody advertises for free. Plus, if you think about it Facebook is the perfect place to advertise, millions upon millions of people view it everyday and if they are as loyal to the site as I am then they probably believe the advertisements and recommendations put forth by the site. I would probably at least look up the Dentist if I had a child that needed dental work. Just as I would look at the delicious looking meal that is so easy to prepare according to the picture. The fact of the matter is, are these really the best places to go or have they paid their way on to the site?

Honestly, I believe some sites are reliable for obtaining credible information. I've found very credible information on CNN, Time Magazine, The Columbus Dispatch, etc. These are all sites that have good credibility and generally the information is reliable, if the information changes they are some of the first to let you know. That is an attempt on their part to provide credible information to the people. Do I believe Facebook, Twitter, and Instragram are credible, no I don't. I enjoy them as much as the next person but I wouldn't go there when looking for breaking news or resources.