The new provider of information: Wikipedia

Wikipedia is known all over the world. The website has been set up by Jimmy Wales. Its main goal is to provide free information to people over the world. The only thing needed is internet of course.

“Wikipedia does not give the truth. It gives objective information about a subject.” This is said by Jimmy Wales. The information is provided by volunteers and can be changed by others. The information is being controlled regurlarly on its reliability, so no subjective information can be found on the website. This makes the data fairly correct.

Although the information is being checked, there are still people who doubt the reliability of Wikipedia. This is because the website is controlled by volunteers, no experts. The articles can be changed by others, which gives less security. The danger of using Wikipedia is that also false information is leaked on the internet.

A big advantage of Wikipedia is that people have free excess to knowledge. Lots of data is hidden by important institutions such as the government. It gives people more freedom to be given information. The danger of this is that also secret data of a country can be made public, which might have negative consequences for its population.

Personally I think that there are more advantages than disadvantages. The amount of information provided is gigantic. Besides, using the internet makes it a lot easier and faster to find answers. This is because books are not necessary anymore. Instead of flipping through the pages, the computer does the searching for you. This saves a lot of time and effort. Even though Wikipedia is not always thrustworthy, it has many advantages and worth using.

Interactive Oral Activity nr.1

Rationale

Our first Interactive Oral Activity was planned on the 15^th of February. Based on the subject Media & Culture, we chose to talk about the invasion of privacy of celebrities.

Our main problem during preparation was the type of form. Eventually we decided to do an interview, with some elements of a talk show. Instead of having a conversation between two people, we made up three people: two being interviewed and one interviewer. This caused some problems in the amount of text and role division. It has been a good choice though, because now we showed two sides of the issue: the experiences of a celebrity and the experiences of a journalist. We divided the amount of text evenly by dividing the role of the interviewer.

Sabine and I have worked together before, so this was no problem at all. This has been our first presentation together though. To be more comfortable, we kept the written text with us during the presentation. Unfortunately this also caused reading out pieces of text and ended up to be our main point of criticism. Personally, I was bothered by the fact I could hear myself making mistakes while the content of the text was formed quite well.

I think the form of an interview suited us and our division of roles worked out pretty good. We doubted if it would get confusing, but it did not. I’m also satisfied with the content of our interview. Our collaboration worked out fine, but I didn’t expect problems because we’ve done projects together before.

We’re both not fond of standing in front of the class, so taking that in consideration the performance was okay. Next time we could try to use keywords, instead of the whole text.

Better life, No crime

Is this possible?

Safety, education and an expanded budget. It sounds like we’re able to live in an Utopia, if we will vote for Better life, no crime. But, are these goals even achievable with the measures they have?

“We are going to make America a lot safer by establishing a stricter immigration policy”  There is nothing wrong with this statement. We all want to live in a safe society. “They have to prove they deserve a place in our society”  Will people vote for you, if you use arguments like these? Our society is made up different people, different religions and different cultures. This is what makes America! There is no ‘perfect culture’ that every citizen should adapt. Everybody deserves a place in our society, they do not have to prove that by changing their lifestyle.

Talking about changing their lifestyle, better life no crime want people with an unhealthy lifestyle to pay more healthcare costs. How can you tell someone has an unacceptable lifestyle? Sure there are people having health problems because of a high fat percentage, but not every ill person in the hospital is lying there goes to McDonalds everyday for lunch! I don’t think you can force people to pay extra, because there is no clear example of an healthy lifestyle everybody should adapt.

At last they want to use the ‘expanded budget’ to put more police on the streets and improve education. Again, nice promises, but not reasonable. There is no chance, the budget will be expanded in such a way that government can subside schools and offices.

“We ask America to support us in order to have a better life”  Instead of supporting better life no crime, let’s find a party who supports us.

Response to Romeo and Juliet

Romeo meets Juliet for the first time at a costumed party at the Capulet’s house. Through the glass of the aquarium, he sees her face and falls in love immediately. A romantic song is played in the background. The nurse gets to Juliet and brings her to Paris. The character of Paris makes you think of a fool, who is too full of himself. The character of Juliet is casted really well. The girl looks sweet and innocent in her angel costume. After the dance of Paris and Juliet, the story becomes a bit hasty. Because of this, the story also becomes less romantic. It’s original story is placed in a modern setting, which I think is not a right combination.

In the performance we’ve seen, Romeo was casted more as a tough guy. He was not  a sweet, romantic boy like the Romeo from the book. However, this was not annoying at all. He did show a bit of arrogance.

I think that Juliet was very different than the original Juliet. The Juliet from Shakespeare’s “Romeo & Juliet” is kind, friendly, honest and innocent. The woman, who played Juliet in the Illyria performance was shouting (because there were no microphones used) but this made Juliet not sweet-hearted at all. Especially in the balcony scene, she looked angry instead of in love.

There were almost no props used in the performance. There was a “death bed” placed behind the curtain and there was some kind of “balcony”. The actors changed clothes, when they changed characters. This made the difference between characters clear for the audience. The acting was fine. Paris was casted as a bit of a loser and the father of Juliet was a very dominant man. The nurse was casted very good. She was obviously the funny character of the story.