Wiki: The Syrian Civil War (Analysed)

So, I’m going to assume that almost everyone is familiar with Wikipedia. I have mentioned it a few times in my previous blog posts. It is well known for being ‘an online free-content encyclopaedia that anyone can edit’, which in my translation basically means that anyone can cite themselves as an expert on anything and everything, even I can! Wikipedia aims to ‘bring knowledge to anyone who seeks it’ and seems to have a page on almost everything. But how accurate are these pages? Can Wikipedia really be regarded as a “reliable” source? In the following piece I will look specifically at the Wikipedia page on the Syrian Civil War.

The Wikipedia page on the Syrian Civil War was first created on 3rd February 2011. The content available on the page when it was created was no more than a few lines. The page simply stated that protests in Syria were expected to begin on the 4th and 5th of February in front of the Parliament in Damascus, in a demand for freedom and the end of the emergency law.

Looking at the page content on the 19th of February 2011 almost two weeks after the protests were said to have begun; the information on the page seemed to have evolved to include details about the various protests that had taken place since the 4th of February. By the 1st of May 2011, the page had further evolved to include the history of Syria and the government, a timeline of events, support for the government, support for the opposition, concessions, and much more. Viewing the page today, the word count stands at approximately 15,000 words giving a detailed account of the Syrian Civil War to date, including background information. It is fair to say that this word count will continue to increase, as the War is still ongoing.

But how accurate is the information on this page? Before even looking into the details given on the page it is important to note than anyone can add or change the content on the page. Thus, the reliability and stability of the page can be questioned from the offset. Looking at the profile of just one of the editors of the page, I can see that the author is not an expert on the topic. For me, the fact that this author has no relevant expertise on the subject, leads me to believe that there is room for errors, misinformation and bias on this page. Almost any edits about ongoing Civil Wars are likely to be controversial as politics is involved! When it comes to politics everyone has their own personal stance, and this is obviously going to be reflected in their writing. I think it is very difficult for an individual to remain completely objective. Furthermore, even less information is given about many of the other editors. Interestingly, in the talk section of the page on editor was “who are you working for”? For all we know, someone is paying them to write what they have!

Taking a closer look at the talk section of the page, which provides editorial disputes over various sections of the page, I can see that there are many ongoing disputes amongst the editors of the page themselves. Looking specifically at the propaganda section, one editor wrote how before they made their contribution, the ‘propaganda section was like propaganda itself’ as it was ‘100% about the Syrian Government’, thus it was not balanced. Following the editors changes, another editor notes how the balancing additions are ‘unprofessional’, and how some of the sources used to balance the section are unreliable. In particular, there is much dispute over the use of ‘Russia Today’ as a source. Many editors argue that because Russia Today is run by the Russian state, it is an unreliable source. The sources are also accused of being censored. One editor wrote: ‘I think censorship is being practiced here. I think it's an abuse of Wikipedia’.

The page is also accused of failure to keep a secular opposition. One editor argues that the most relevant opposition in Syria today are the Islamists, and yet they are not reflected in the article at all. The only reference I could find was: ‘Clan leaders in Syria claim that the armed uprising is of a tribal, revenge-based nature, not Islamist’. Looking at another article I found that the FSA suggest that its top commanders see the Islamists as ‘a threat to stability post regime change’. Surely this information is relevant to the page? However, another editor notes how the page is a summary of the Civil War, and that only a sentence or two needs to be spent on the growing power of Islamists. The editor argues how details about the opposition should go in their main pages.

Although there does appear to be a number of issues between editors on 7 of the subsections that appear in the article, that still leaves a vast number of sections left undisputed. That must mean that these sections are reliable right? Maybe, however, I would still argue that one cannot fully establish the reliability of the information in these other sections. Just because an editor has not disputed it, does not make it wholly reliable!

When I took a closer look at the ratings for the page I found that the current average was 1 in relation to the following categories: trustworthy, objective, complete and well-written. Each of the sections had an average of 576 ratings, which is not a substantial number of votes, for the number of views on the page, but still a noteworthy number.

With the Syrian Civil Page being such an extensive page, it would appear as though much effort has gone into making the article as detailed as possible and attempts have been made to make the information as accurate as possible. In particular, this can be seen by the substantial number of edits that have been made to the page since it was created, and the efforts of the editors to resolve disputes and add or change the content accordingly.

I would argue that the motivations of the editors to make this article are largely to inform the public of what is going on with regards to the Syrian Civil War. I do not believe their motives to be any more or any less. Thus I believe that the page is being written in good faith, however, I still would not consider it to be a reliable source of information, mainly due to nature of Wikipedia. Not only this, but as this is an ongoing political dispute, I believe it to be a highly controversial issue anyway and I believe the page reflects this.

Journalism: Switch 2 Data Mode

Traditional forms of media, such as print and television, are becoming progressively less popular as much of the new generation has turned to the internet as their main source of information. Not only can people access the news on their computers, but they can also access it on their mobile phones and tablets, without any hassle. I almost expect the news to be pushed to me on Facebook, Twitter, email etc. Such possibilities have created a worldwide audience that expects news on a variety of platforms, almost instantaneously. Thus, journalism has also advanced towards being data based (data journalism) to keep up with the new day and age. Both data and journalism are not actually simple though. When we think of data, we think of numbers; however this is not actually the case...

Online journalism today now requires an appreciation of the importance of data, of facts and figures, by all journalists. The ways in which data is used to tell stories has changed drastically with the advancement of digital journalism. Data and numbers are manipulated by journalists to get them the results significant to them. These days, journalists are required to have specialist skills, to do with coding and development, or numeracy and understanding especially if they are writing stories that will be published online. At the same time they are still required to find and tell stories in a clear and simple manner.

I think this is very much to do with the visual storytelling. Graphics and other types of data help a journalists tell their story, especially with online news; many people tend not to read online articles word for word. Instead, they look for visuals that help them quickly grasp an idea of what the article is trying to say. This can be done using pictures, audio and videos, not just graphics.

‘An awareness of how social media works and how social networks relate to news’ has become a key factor in digital journalism as stated by BBC News editor Steve Herrmann. Journalists are now required to understand exactly how to use social networks for newsgathering ‘and to understand how to leverage social media to find out things, to get in contact with people, to talk to people and to spot trends’.

One noteworthy type of data we should consider is live data that is not actually stored anywhere, rather, will be produced at a particular time. One example of this is the way in which newspapers are increasingly using Twitter commentary to provide eyewitness accounts or context to a particular debate. Take for example a plane crash, an earthquake, a flood or a terrorist attack, any breaking news that takes place in a community, anyone who has seen and experienced the news event will tweet about it. One of the biggest challenges faced by journalists in covering such news is always trying to find people who have witnessed the event or were affected by it. If a journalist uses Twitter’s advanced search feature, then they are able to quickly find and connect with these people and are able to get interviews, and quotes, or even able to embed their tweets into their stories. 

'Idol' star Elliott Yamin 'tweets' real-time reports from earthquake-ravaged Chile (2010):

 

(Image source) 

As part of the Guardian’s coverage of Tony Blair’s appearance at the Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq War, they used the data of thousands of ‘tweets’ to provide a ‘sentiment analysis timeline of how people reacted to the particular parts of his evidence as it went on’. There have been many other timelines like the one just discussed being produced for political debates and speeches to measure public reactions on certain issues. Social media is also now an excellent way for journalists to get their own work and own journalism out as a means of distribution.

However, I do believe that the news media are struggling to keep up with the demands of online readers. Journalists are being pressured to publish news online as soon as it happens; even if that means that what they are publishing may be of poor quality. They are expected to tweet live from events. They also have to compete with bloggers, and the general public. Now more than ever, the audience is playing a vital role. They can produce, demand, and fund news as they please, once they find it that is!

The Internet: The Risky Leap Forward.

I remember when I was able to sign up to a site without any hassle, a quick process, not as simple anymore. In the past 2-3 years CAPTCHA has been implemented to sign up and sign in processes because of spam, thanks spammers!

(Click for image source)

CAPTCHA is not the only thing that has made a sign up process longer, there are several security measures that we have to go through because of certain types of people known as hackers. 

Hackers are people who are very intelligent when it comes to computers and the web. They use things such spyware to infiltrate other peoples personal belongings and even hack major organisations and websites. Hacking has become very common and things such as anti-spyware and anti-virus have been introduced to counter attack these hackers.

Hacking is only possible via the internet/computing; and as long as these exist, there will always be hackers and they will always find alternative routes to meddle.

There are different types of hackers and they all possess different motives. Some hackers want your credit card details, some want to get a point across and others do it to dig out information

An example of hacking would be the phone hacking scandals in the U.K. which saw the spear head of British tabloids News Of The Worlds imminent conclusion. This hacking saga has been on going for some time now; as most recently Detective Chief Inspector April Casburn, 53, was found guilty of leaking information to News Of The World. (Read the article HERE)

 (Click for image source)

Hacking is ILLEGAL and if found guilty of hacking, a person could face severe sanctions. I mentioned News Of The World earlier on in this post. They were forced to close down after a streak of phone hacking incidents. But are hackers really fussed? Have these sanctions brought an end to hacking? Are we all safe? The answer is no. 

There is a hacking group known as Anonymous who are what their name says they are: 'ANONYMOUS'. They have been around for some time now and have never been found out or caught for their criminal act. Their agenda for hacking seems to be politically motivated.

Here is a video of Anonymous:

As we are all aware, Fox news is a huge corporation and if they are vulnerable to hackers then how are WE smaller organisations and individual people safe? The internet has become a cyber imitation of the world that we live in. We have friendly people on the internet and we have criminals such as pedophiles and hackers. How are we able to feel safe over the internet and our smartphones device when even detectives are guilty of hacking? 

As a frequent internet user I am extremely cautious now when I am surfing the web. I don't just worry for the topless photo's on my phone or the £1.50 in my bank account, I worry for the safety of my future. If the internet keeps becoming more exposed then the people who use the internet will be more prone to becoming exposed with it.

(Click for image source)

Hackers also leak well recognised software from world renowned corporations such as Adobe and Microsoft as free downloads on the internet. They make the software free using various methods, patches and key generators which are commonly found through torrents and file sharing websites. 

The Internet: Freebies For All!

(Click for image source)

The internet over the years has advanced dramatically; much like the technology and the computers that we use to access the worldwide web. With advanced technology and developed ideas comes more advanced knowledge and access to these ideas. In simplistic form, I am trying to tell you that even though the internet is advancing, it is getting older and people are becoming more familiar with it, and what they can do with it.

(Click for image source)

Take former existing file sharing website Mega Upload for example, as the site manipulated the Internets vulnerability through giving the cyber public access to files which they did not own and were not prohibited to give access to. So this brings forth the question: Are the files we upload onto the internet solely ours? Or are we just giving away freebies?

In my spare time I like to make music and I often release my material onto the web for free; this is a legitimate freebie, the public are welcome. I have friends that are also musicians who sometimes do the same, but sometimes also charge money for their music, they have the right to do so. 

A friend of mine had spent months creating an album, hundreds of pounds invested in studio time, CD distribution, cover art, music videos and photo shoots. He released the album as a download people had to pay for, to get returns for his hard work and investment. A week later, all the songs had been leaked on to the internet and YouTube and people were downloading them for free. His project overall was a success in terms of the exposure it got, but he had lost a lot of money.

Recently, I had met up with him and asked him about how he felt about his work being distributed over the internet for free; He described it as being 'damaging' and said that it has taken away his 'enthusiasm' for music. He also said: 

"The music market is suffering financially because of people who illegally download and give out music they do not own for nothing."

"Artists now only make revenue from PRS and gigs. We (Musicians), have also been forced to make Mickey Mouse music like Gangnam Style to make money because people get pleasure from this and are willing to show huge interest."

 (Click for image source)

According to the music industry body IFPI, more than 40 billion songs were downloaded ILLEGALLY in 2008. It costs £0.79 to download a song via iTunes, X that by 40 billion and it equals:

31 600 000 000 = thirty-one billion six hundred million POUNDS (Financial loss)

Now that is an astronomical amount of loss the music industry has suffered from, and for the artists and producers who created the music. The idea of downloading songs for free is becoming more popular and I would assume that these figures have increased over the year as access to these files becomes easier. The younger generations who are the biggest consumers and audience of music are being introduced to a free web and in the current musical climate; illegal downloads are inevitable. 

Yes, there are sanctions for people who download music illegally, IF caught. But these sanctions are not really threatening, as it is impossible to sanction a huge percentage of the worlds population. 

 (Click for image source) 

The music industry is not only a victim of illegal use, so is the movie industry. Referring back to Mega Upload, they had a sister website called Mega Video. Mega Video allowed easy web streaming and download of movies, so people had access to the latest movies to view for free on their laptops and desktops Although Mega Video had been shut down with Mega Upload; there are several sites which allow streaming of movies for free.

Although these issues are being slowly tackled, the picture of a solution is very bleak and distant. Billions of pounds have already been lost, continue to be lost and cannot be claimed. 

'THE INTERNET INDEFINITE SALE: EVERYTHING MUST GO, FOR FREE!!!!' 

 

The Man Behind The Screen: 'Hi, My name is...'

I was on my Playstation the other day and I noticed an app titled 'Playstation Home'. I went onto the app and I made my own character, dressed it up and even designed its house! My initial thought was, that maybe this is just a game, like the Sims, but it wasn't. Playstation Home was in fact a cyber world for Playstation Gamers to interact with each other, play games with each other and run around each other. I found it extremely bizarre that people would want to spend time with other cyber identities in a false world. The most amazing thing I had come across though was that people actually pay for cyber furniture for their cyber homes!!

(Click for image source)

Obviously, Playstation has not advanced enough to make our cyber characters look identical to ourselves in creation. When I created myself on Playstation Home, I was only limited to a specific look. My character had long blonde hair, white skin, a big jacket, combat trousers with some huge shades; completely the opposite of my real self.  This makes Playstation Home very dangerous because it creates a false image of myself in this case, and manipulates people and there interpretation of me. 

Another danger of this cyber world is that, it is used by people from all wakes of life; for example - children. A conversation between two people on Playstation Home is public and every cyber character which is near other characters engaging in a conversation can see everything that is being said. This makes children very vulnerable to pedophiles and other criminals.

 

(Click for image source)

The first source of communication via the internet was E-Mails, which was quite formal. But this idea was developed, made easier and faster...

The first time I was introduced to the internet, chat rooms were massively popular. There was chat rooms for all audiences and purposes.  This was the foundation of where the idea of cyber identities were created; an online society full of people talking to other people they had never seen before.

 (Click for image source)

The first ever chat room I had joined was on AOL. The chat room was for kids and each chat room would have a host/moderator. If anyone swore, you would be kicked out of the chat room and suspended. The chat room was mainly about interests such as kids television shows and a place where kids could play games with the moderator, Scrabble was my favorite. 

 (Click for image source)

A year later, my age was upgraded on my AOL subscription and I was able to IM (Instant Message). I enjoyed this because it was very fast and easy. A private conversation between me and another person, rather than trying to get a word in a chat room full of loads of people was beneficial. I remember speaking to a girl and telling her that I was the son of a professional wrestler, not my proudest moment. The girl was from America and had started declaring her love for me, a cyber presence she barely knows! I would tell her I had things I never had and she would believe me because she had her own image of me in her head from what I had told her... Don't judge me though, I was only a kid!

 (Click for image source)

I was later introduced to MSN messenger which is now known as Windows LIVE, owned by Microsoft. MSN was so much more cooler than AOL. You had your own display picture, the ability to talk via mic/cam and it even later developed so you could have a conversation with more than one person and play games!

The web was changing almost every day. We were then introduced to social networks such as Bebo and Facebook. These social networks kept advancing and implementing new ideas which revolutionised the online identity.

Online identity is becoming stronger each day and more ways to create these cyber egos are becoming accessible. Even accounts on twitter which are evidently fake and admit they are fake in their 'bio' have thousands of followers and hundreds of interactions each day.

(Click for image source)

This Is My Digital Voice: Are You Listening?

Communication over time has advanced in many ways. Let's start with the first every form of communication which was sign language. From sign language, to speaking, writing, telegraph, to emails etc etc. Our world today is so advanced that we now also have a digital voice. As you are reading this blog, I am communicating with you through my digital voice... You get the concept now, right? If not, a digital voice is communication through technology.

When I had my first mobile phone, now referred to as a dumb phone, since the introduction of the SMART phones, I was only able to call and text. As phone technology developed, I was able to send multimedia messages, emails, and was able to even send and receive video calls. These ideas have kept developing and now we can communicate via phone applications such as Blackberry messenger and WhatsApp.

 

(Click for image source)

WhatsApp is a smart phone application which enables you to chat to other people through text and voice clip for free. Because of apps such as Whatsapp, the idea of the traditional SMS is slowly fading and people are starting to use smart phone messaging apps, why not? It's free and efficient. With WhatsApp, you can also send and receive files; something that SMS does not allow you to do. I had recently checked how many text messages I had sent last year and was told by my service operator that I had only sent 30. I have both WhatsApp and Blackberry messenger, I barely ever need to text. Especially when we live in a day and age where everyone owns a smart phone.

The internet has become a place that provides freedom of digital speech. We are now able to write blogs like mine, create petitions, polls, quizzes, and even make friends and meet partners via social networks.

 

(Click for image source)

Another advancement in forms of communication would be Skype. Skype gives the user the ability to instant message, call, hold a conference call with video and a whole load of other features. This is a revolutionary step in software technology because they have now developed this idea into a handset. Yes, there is a Skype app for your phone. Miss your mother? Why not give her a call and see her face? It's all free. This also gives an indication of an imminent death of the traditional phone and features. If calls can be made for free, texts can be sent for free and even multimedia and video calls are free, what is the need of a phone? We can communicate via Skype now, without a phone number, rather a Skype ID.

The digital voice can be misused and expressed negatively. Fake pictures on Facebook profiles are now being used, with fake identities (Textual mask). People are using their digital voice to portray themselves as a whole different character and even impersonate another person.

(Click for image source)

We have the options of privatising our digital voices or making them public. Celebrities for example, have Facebook and twitter pages which are open to the public and they communicate with the public through these pages. Some people prefer to keep their profiles on these social networks private.

Hacking group anonymous use their digital voice for political activism, see the video below:

Terms & Conditions = Don't Read, Scroll Down & Accept

So what are Terms & Conditions? Well, here's a Wikipedia definition for you: Terms of service (commonly abbreviated as ToS or TOS^[1] and also known as Terms of Use, Terms & Conditions) are rules which one must agree to abide by in order to use a service. Terms of Service can also be referred to as Terms of Use or sometimes merely a Disclaimer, especially regarding the use of websites. (Click here if you feel enthusiastic and want to read more.)

We all know the importance of a legitimate contract, and that if we agree to it then we must abide by it. This is also the case with terms and conditions, although we don't really take it as seriously or as conciously as the traditional and more formal contract.

This then makes me wonder; my younger brother is 15 years old and has a Facebook account, his age means that he does not have the contractual capacity to fulfil a contract (Under 18), making a contract/agreement void? Right? Maybe not, after doing a bit of research; Facebooks Help page clearly inidcates that anyone can sign up to Facebook, from the of 13. If anyone found under the age of 13 creates a Facebook and their profiles get found out, they will be deleted.

So maybe the terms and conditions aren't as limited, in terms of age capacity as are formal contracts. I guess in terms of social media, terms and conditions are simply an agreement to abide by the rules. That doesn't mean that you should not read them (You must watch the video above if you haven't). Keep reading on and I will explain why.

Come on, we are all guilty of signing up to something and not even reading a word of the terms & conditions. I mean, whats the point? It's just a load of text that doesn't really matter and can potentially come back and haunt us in the future...

WHAT??? SERIOUSLY???? NO WAY??? Of course not, unless the information you've shared becomes credible in the future and the material you've shared on sites such as Facebook and Twitter become profitable, then yes. (PLEASE CLICK HERE, PRETTY PLEASE)

We will take Facebook owned photo sharing app Instagram as a prime example. Recently, there was huge controversy over the new terms & conditions that Instagram had published. These terms & conditions had implications of giving Instagram the right to all images uploaded to be commercially used without identification.

For those of you who only use Instagram to take pictures of food, you probably don't care. But some people upload valuable art, pictures with high sentimental value and images they just don't want anyone else to have or see!

Instagram however apologised and reassured the interested public that they were not to use their photos, despite losing a big percentage of their users.

The moral of the story is that; terms & conditions are basically similar to a contract, and if you are not aware of the important tiny details then you are responsible for agreeing to something which you do not actually agree to. (BUT YOU DID!)

So be careful and READ the terms & conditions!