text:
User:WBJB003

This is not my main user page. Go to the wikipedia main page and type in my username.

title: User:WBJB003


text:
User talk:WBJB003

This is not my main talk page. Go to my user page for directions.WBJB003 | talk 17:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User talk:WBJB003


text:
Draft:Original research inquiry

Original research is a two-word term. It usually does not occur in a dictionary.

This is an inquiry into what is original research.

"The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no [WP:V#Sources] reliable, published source exists. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that [WP:SYN] serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources."

"By "exists", the community means that the reliable source must have been published and still exist—somewhere in the world, in any language, whether or not it is reachable online—even if no source is currently named in the article. Articles that currently name zero references of any type may be fully compliant with this policy—so long as there is a reasonable expectation that every bit of material is supported by a published, reliable source."

Inquiry
Def. the "act of inquiring; a seeking of information by asking questions; interrogation; a question or questioning" or a search "for truth, information, or knowledge; examination into [of] facts or principles; research; investigation; as, physical inquiries" is called an inquiry, or enquiry.

Usage notes:

According to Fowler's Modern English Usage (1926), inquiry should be used in relation to a formal inquest, and enquiry to the act of questioning. Many (though not all) British writers maintain this distinction; the Oxford English Dictionary, in its entry not updated since 1900, lists inquiry and enquiry as equal alternatives, in that order. Some British dictionaries, such as Chambers 21st Century Dictionary, present the two spellings as interchangeable variants in the general sense, but prefer inquiry for the "formal inquest" sense. In Australian English, inquiry represents a formal inquest (such as a government investigation) while enquiry is used in the act of questioning (eg: the customer enquired about the status of his loan application). Both spellings are current in Canadian English, where enquiry is often associated with scholarly or intellectual research. (See Pam Peters, The Cambridge Guide to English Usage, p. 282.)

American English usually uses inquiry.

Research
"Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. Best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly. Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources."

Def. diligent "inquiry or examination to seek or revise facts, principles, theories, applications, etc.; laborious or continued search after truth" is called research.

"In an era when political leaders promise deliverance from decline through America’s purported preeminence in scientific research, the news that science is in deep trouble in the United States has been as unwelcome as a diagnosis of leukemia following the loss of health insurance."

Original
On Wiktionary, original usually means first in time. But, what about synonymy? Suppose someone creates a synonymy for an original sentence. Is this truly a synonym or is it original research? Usually, the idea of putting the sentence into your own words indicates synonymy. And, the proof is left to the reader. Should it be?

In the Wikipedia article persuasive definition: "A persuasive definition is a form of definition which purports to describe the 'true' or 'commonly accepted' meaning of a term, while in reality stipulating an uncommon or altered use, usually to support an argument for some view, or to create or alter rights, duties or crimes. " I cannot confirm that this definition is in the references indicated.

Consider the following sentence from the Wikipedia article persuasive definition: "A persuasive definition is a form of definition which purports to describe the 'true' or 'commonly accepted' meaning of a term, while in reality stipulating an uncommon or altered use, usually to support an argument for some view, or to create or alter rights, duties or crimes."

In the history of the Wikipedia article definition, there is "Definitions should avoid being what C.L. Stevenson calls 'persuasive'. A persuasive definition is one which purports to describe the 'true' or 'commonly accepted' meaning of a term, while in reality stipulating an altered use, perhaps as an argument for some view, for example that some system of government is democratic. Stevenson also notes that some definitions are 'legal' or 'coercive', whose object is to create or alter rights, duties or crimes."

While I do not have ready access to Stevenson's publication, which synonymy is the exact synonymy and are any relative synonymy? "In his Ethics and Language, Stevenson defines the term 'persuasive definition' as follows: "In any 'persuasive definition' the term defined is a familiar one, whose meaning is both descriptive and strongly emotive. The purport of the definition is to alter the descriptive meaning of the term, usually by giving it greater precision within the boundary of its customary vagueness; but the definition does not make any substantial change in the term's emotive meaning. And the definition is used, consciously or unconsciously, in an effort to secure, by this interplay between emotive and descriptive meaning, a redirection of people's attitudes" (Stevenson, 1944)"

If these are not all exact, perhaps the authors between Stevenson and the present have strayed slightly from exact synonymy. Relative synonymy may be a form of original research.

Original researches
Def. "new research, as opposed to review or synthesis of earlier research" or the "production of brand-new ideas via hypothesis, experimentation, and/or deduction, as opposed to mere review or resynthesis of earlier knowledge in the field" is called original research.

Reliable sources
Def. "[s]uitable or fit to be relied on; worthy of dependence or reliance; trustworthy" is called reliable.

The categories for synonymy and most common usage place reliable in "142. STABILITY", followed by "512. CERTAINTY", then "972. PROBITY".

Def. "[t]he person, place, or thing from which something (information, goods, etc.) comes or is acquired" is called a source.

Def. "[t]o rest with confidence, as when fully satisfied of the veracity, integrity, or ability of persons, or of the certainty of facts or of evidence; to have confidence; to trust; to depend" is called rely.

Def. "[t]he quality of a measurement indicating the degree to which the measure is consistent, that is, repeated measurements would give the same result" is called reliability.

Def. "the closeness of agreement among repeated measurements of a variable made under the same operating conditions over a period of time, or by different people" is called reproducibility.

The categories for the most common uses are reliability: "512. CERTAINTY", rely and reliance: "500. BELIEF", but the second most common category of usage for reliable is "512. CERTAINTY".

Attributions
To demonstrate that you are adding OR, you must be unable to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material as presented.

All material added to articles that is not original research or original synthesis must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed. "The [Wikipedia:Verifiability] verifiability policy says that an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything [WP:CHALLENGED] challenged or likely to be challenged—but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged."

Least publishable units
A "least publishable unit" (LPU) is an older expression for the smallest possible fact that has been determined to be a fact that just might be publishable, and has not as yet been published.

LPUs seem to be everywhere yet each one probably has an originator who may have included it in a published context somewhere. When one occurs in a text without attribution to an earlier source, the author including it usually gets the credit, and the honor, of introducing that little fact to everyone.

Some LPUs require extensive research and exploration to determine what they are and prove that they are. The phrase "dominant group" initially appears to be an LPU. Its earliest origin on Wikipedia is not known.

Def. "new research, as opposed to review or synthesis of earlier research" is called original research.

Synthesis
Combining material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources is considered synthesis (a variety of original research). If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, then joining A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources is synthesis.

Def. a "formation of something complex or coherent by combining simpler things" is called synthesis.

Def. a "reaction of chemical elements or compounds to form more complex compounds" is called synthesis, or chemical synthesis.

Def. a "deduction from the general to the particular" is called synthesis, or logical synthesis.

Def. a "combination of thesis and antithesis" is called synthesis, or philosophical synthesis.

Def. "the examining and combining of processed information with other information and intelligence for final interpretation" is called synthesis, or military intelligence synthesis.

Def. an "apt arrangement of elements of a text, especially for euphony" is called synthesis, or rhetorical synthesis.

Tests of term
Several different tests or learning packets (lessons) may be generated from the original research project focused on the term "dominant group". Currently under development in resource space is Dominant group/Metagenome/Term test. The term "dominant group" is an interesting example and possible test for original research vs. ordinary usage. It has no ordinary usage dictionary definition. But, there are several technical or theoretical definitions for scholarly use. Curiously, if an author uses the term in a sentence, for example:

The course of evolution has been changed several times by mass extinctions that wiped out previously dominant groups and allowed others to rise from obscurity to become major components of ecosystems.

The author may be speculating or engaging in original research.

This example is close to the cited statements in dominant group/paleontology. But, there is a distinct difference: "The course of evolution has been changed several times" is not the same meaning as the authors indicate in "dominant group/paleontology".

Additional aids in determining what each student should or could do can be found in these wikiversity articles:
 * 1) Dominant group/Classes
 * 2) Test of term.

Unattributed but attributable
"That "Paris is the capital of France" needs no source, because no one is likely to object to it and we know that sources exist for it. The statement is attributable, even if not attributed."

It is not that someone would object, but rather that the facts should be presented to speak for themselves.

Paris appears to have been the official capital of France from May 28, 1871, until the present.

Unknowns
For example, the first astronomical X-ray source in the constellation Andromeda is not known. Researchers have detected many X-ray sources within the borders of the constellation. But, the first such source has never been designated or stated anywhere in the primary literature. Searching the existent primary literature is certainly valuable research that may suggest one or more likely sources. Confirmation that one of these is detected at an earlier date than the others may no longer be available. Is this only research? Or, is it original research?

Hypotheses

 * 1) Original research should be new research in a field where some results are achievable.
 * 2) Original research is not a conjecture synthesized from the words, conclusions, or experimental facts of others. It is the results of experimentation to prove a conjecture or hypothesis right or wrong.

title: Draft:Original research inquiry


text:
User:Egm4313.s12.team3.katz

 * 1) Team 3 Construction
 * 2) Report 1 Problem 5
 * 3) All Problems
 * 4) Lecture Plan
 * 5) Exams
 * 6) Report Table

title: User:Egm4313.s12.team3.katz


text:
University of Florida/Egm4313/s12 Wyatt Ling Report 1

Report 1 Questions:

R1.1: Derive the equation of motion of a spring-dashpot system in parallel, with a mass and applied force f(t). R1.2: Derive the equation of motion of the spring-mass-dashpot ing Fig. 53, in K 2011 p.85, with an applied force r(t) on the ball. R1.3: For the spring-dashpot system on p.1-4 (of sec.1 notes), draw the FBD's and derive the equation of motion (2) p.1-4. R1.4: Using the Circuit equation (see Sec2 Notes), derive equations (3) and (4) from it. R1.4: Also see K 2011 p.59 pbs.4-5. R1.5: For each ODE in Fig.@ in K 2011 p.3 (except the last one involving a system of 2 ODEs), determine the order, linearity (or lack of), and show whether the principle of superposition can be applied.


text:
Talk:Cymraeg 1

Pronounciation
I think, and especially for a gaelic language that is hard to pronounce, there should some sort of pronunciation guide. Or perhaps an audio clip of someone saying it (spelt out/slowly annunciated)Lihaas 18:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:Cymraeg 1


text:
University of Florida/Egm4313/s12 Wyatt Ling Report 2

Report 2 Questions:

R2.1: Find the solution for general excitation for each of the 2 systems (1ab) and (2ab) above. No excitation: r(x) = 0 Plot the solution for each system.

R2.2: Given initial conditions $$y(0) = 1, y'(0) = 0\!$$ No excitation: $$r(x) = 0\!$$ Find and plot the solution for L2-ODE-CC(4) p.5-5

R2.3: K 2011 p.59 problems 3, 4.

R2.4: K 2011 p.59 problems 5,6.

R2.5: K 2011 p.59 problems 16, 17.

R2.6: Realize a spring-dashpot-mass system in series as shown in Fig. p.1-4 with the same characteristic as in (3) p.5-5, i.e., with double real root lambda = 5, i.e., find the values for the parameters k, c, m.


text:
User:Egm4313.s12.team3.katz/Brian Katz Report 1 Questions

=Problem 5: Solving Ordinary Differential Equations by find the general solution=

Problem Statement
Given ODE's of this kind find the general solution and check the results using substitution. Similar ODE's and classification are shown in [[media:Iea.s12.sec2d.djvu|Sec 2 p. 2-5]].
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle y''+4y'+(\pi^2 +4)y=0 $$ $$ \displaystyle y''+2\pi y'+\pi^2 y=0 $$
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *
 * }

Part A

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle y''+4y'+(\pi^2 +4)y=0 $$ (5.1) Using the general form
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *
 * }
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle \lambda^2+a\lambda+b=0 $$
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |

Equation (5.1) becomes
 *
 * }
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle \lambda^2+4\lambda+(\pi^2+4)=0 $$ $$   \displaystyle \lambda_1=\frac{-4+(\sqrt{16-4(\pi^2+4)})}2 \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \lambda_2=\frac{-4-(\sqrt{16-4(\pi^2+4)})}2 $$ $$   \displaystyle \lambda_1=\frac{-4+(\sqrt{-4\pi^2)}}2 \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \lambda_2=\frac{-4-(\sqrt{-4\pi^2)}}2 $$ $$   \displaystyle \lambda_1=\frac{-4+2\pi i}{2} \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \lambda_2=\frac{-4-2\pi i}{2} $$ $$   \displaystyle \lambda_1=-2+\pi i \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \lambda_2=-2-\pi i $$
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *
 * }

 * {| style="width:40%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle y_1=e^{-2x} \cos{\pi x} \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\; y_2=e^{-2x} \sin{\pi x} $$ Calculating the derivatives:
 * style="width:92%; padding:10px; border:2px solid #8888aa" |
 * style="width:92%; padding:10px; border:2px solid #8888aa" |
 *
 * }

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle y=Ae^{-2x} \cos{\pi x}+Be^{-2x} \sin{\pi x} $$ $$ \displaystyle y'=[-2Ae^{-2x} \cos{\pi x}-A\pi e^{-2x} \sin{\pi x}]+[\pi Be^{-2x} \cos{\pi x}-2Be^{-2x} \sin{\pi x}] $$ $$ \displaystyle y''=[4Ae^{-2x} \cos{\pi x}\;+2\;\pi Ae^{-2x} \sin{\pi x}\;+\;2\pi Ae^{-2x} \sin\pi x\;-\;\pi^2 Ae^{-2x} \cos{\pi x}]\;+\;[-2B\pi e^{-2x} \cos{\pi x}\;-\;\pi^2 Be^{-2x} \sin{\pi x}\;+\;4Be^{-2x} \sin{\pi x}\;-\;2\pi Be^{-2x} \cos{\pi x}] $$ Simplifying some of the terms:
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *
 * }
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle 4y'=[-8Ae^{-2x} \cos{\pi x}-4A\pi e^{-2x} \sin{\pi x}]+[4\pi Be^{-2x} \cos{\pi x}-8Be^{-2x} \sin{\pi x}] $$ $$ \displaystyle (\pi^2 +4)y=(\pi^2 +4)Ae^{-2x} \cos{\pi x}+(\pi^2 +4)Be^{-2x} \sin{\pi x} $$
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *
 * }

Finally subbing the terms into the original equation:
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle y''\;+\;4y'\;+\;(\pi^2\;+\;4)y=[e^{-2x} \cos{\pi x}]\cdot[4A\;-\;\pi^2 A\;-\;2\pi B\;-\;2\pi B\;-\;8A\;+\;4\pi B\;+\;\pi^2 A\;+\;4A]\;+\;[e^{-2x} \sin{\pi x}]\cdot[2\pi A\;+\;2\pi A\;-\;\pi^2 B\;+\;4B\;-\;4\pi A\;-\;8B\;+\;\pi^2 B\;+\;4B] $$ $$ \displaystyle [e^{-2x} \cos{\pi x}]\cdot[0]+[e^{-2x} \sin{\pi x}]\cdot[0]=0 $$
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *
 * }

Part B

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle y''+2\pi y'+\pi^2 y=0 $$ (5.2) Using the general form
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *
 * }
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle \lambda^2+a\lambda+b=0 $$ Equation (5.2) becomes
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *
 * }
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle \lambda^2+2\pi \lambda+\pi^2=0 $$ $$   \displaystyle \lambda_{1,2}=\frac{-2\pi \pm \sqrt{4\pi^2 - 4\pi^2}}{2} $$ $$   \displaystyle \lambda_{1,2}=-\pi $$
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *
 * }
 * {| style="width:15%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle y_{1,2}=(c_1+c_2x)e^{-\pi x} $$ Calculating the derivatives:
 * style="width:92%; padding:10px; border:2px solid #8888aa" |
 * style="width:92%; padding:10px; border:2px solid #8888aa" |
 *
 * }

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle y=(c_1+c_2x)e^{-\pi x} $$ $$ \displaystyle y'=c_2e^{-\pi x}-\pi (c_1+c_2x)e^{-\pi x} $$ $$ \displaystyle y''=-\pi c_2e^{-\pi x}\;+\;[(-\pi (c_1\;+\;c_2x)\;\cdot\; -\pi e^{-\pi x})(-\pi c_2e^{-\pi x})] =-2\pi c_2e^{-\pi x}\;+\;\pi^2 (c_1\;+\;c_2x)e^{-\pi x} $$ Finally subbing the terms into the original equation:
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *
 * }
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle y''+2\pi y'+\pi^2 y=\pi^2 (c_1+c_2x)e^{-\pi x}-2\pi c_2e^{-\pi x}+2\pi c_2e^{-\pi x}-2\pi^2 (c_1+c_2x)e^{-\pi x}+\pi^2(c_1+c_2x)e^{-\pi x} = 0 $$
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *
 * }


text:
What Matters/fundamentals for living

Introduction:

In addition to the tools of learning, there are several facts and skills that enable us to live our lives, relate to others, and provide us with background and context for further learning.

Basic Life Skills:
Food preparation and healthy eating, personal relationships, human reproduction and intimate relationships, treating people with dignity, respect and compassion, health and safety.

Discussion of the questions: “If I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am for myself alone, what am I? If not now, when?”

Exploration of human virtue.

Characterization of well-being.

The Natural World:
In addition, the graduating pupil ought to have a grasp of the essentials of the scientific vision of the world. An awareness of the overall history of the cosmos, as we understand it, birth of galaxies and stars, origin of the chemical elements, evolution of life, the theories of Charles Darwin, some understanding of basic biology. A feel for physics: atoms, molecules, the atomic nucleus, elementary particles, awareness of basic theories, such as those of Isaac Newton, James Clerk Maxwell, statistical mechanics, quantum mechanics, special and general relativity, and the standard model of particle physics.

The ability to solve, or even write down, the equations of these theories is unnecessary for the lay person, but some awareness of, roughly, what these theories say about the world is important.

Our Political World:
An awareness of what our current global problems are and what we might do about them and are (or are not) doing about them, plus relevant background knowledge. Some history, local and global. Exposure to political ideas, philosophies and programs, and the arguments and counterarguments about them.

Moral Virtue:
Understand moral virtue. Complete a course on moral virtue. Practice and apply moral virtue.

Commerce:
Commerce is the environment that allows exchanging goods and services. Important topics include:
 * Establishing fair value of goods and services,
 * Fair exchange,
 * Allocating scarce resources,
 * Supply and demand,
 * Positive and negative externalities,
 * The essential distinction between economies—the exchange of goods and services—and economics—an approximate money-based model of an economy.
 * Preservation and allocation of the commons.
 * Negotiation skills.

Finding Value in Life:
Discussion of the question: what is of value in life, and how is it to be realized?

Flourishing:
Exploration of the fundamental problem: How can our human world, the world as we experience it, imbued with consciousness, free will, meaning and value, exist and best flourish embedded in the physical universe?

title: What Matters/fundamentals for living


text:
User:Egm4313.s12.team10

Group Members
Seth O'Brien

Silvio Attanasio

Andrew Everidge

David Mercado

Ryan Tillman

Emmett Walsh

Nathaniel Wanzie

Reports
Report 1

Report 2

Report 3

Report 4

Report 5

Report 6

Report 7

Useful Links
Lecture Notes

LaTeX

Report Table

Lecture Plan

EGM4313.s12

Syllabus

title: User:Egm4313.s12.team10


text:
User:Egm4313.s12.team10.everidge

This is Dillon Everidge's page.

Team 10: http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Egm4313.s12.team10

title: User:Egm4313.s12.team10.everidge


text:
User:Egm4313.s12.team10.tillman

http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Egm4313.s12

http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Egm4313.s12.team10

http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Egm4313.s12/Report_table

http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Egm4313.s12.team10.R1

http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Egm4313.s12.team10.R2

http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Egm6321.f09.Team1/HW7

https://sites.google.com/site/egm4313s12/home

title: User:Egm4313.s12.team10.tillman


text:
User:Egm4313.s12.team1.armanious/team1

Help Pages
Latex Code Generator Page

Super Wiki Formatting Help

Team Member Pages
Jesse Durrance's Wiki

Wyatt Ling's Wiki

Chris Stewart's Wiki

Emotion Silvestri's Wiki

George Armanious's Wiki

Eric Essenwein's Wiki

Steven Rosenberg's Wiki

Reports
category : egm4313.s12.team1
 * 1) Report 1

 * 1) Report 2

 * 1) Report 3

 * 1) Report 4

 * 1) Report 5

 * 1) Report 6

 * 1) Report 7

Sandbox

title: User:Egm4313.s12.team1.armanious/team1


text:
User:Egm4313.s12.team5

= Team Members = [Cameron North]

[David Herrick]

[William Knapper]

[Radina Dikova]

[Joshua House]

[Derik Bell]

= Reports = [Report 1] [Report 2] [Report 3] [Report 4] [Report 5] [Report 6] [Report 7]

title: User:Egm4313.s12.team5


text:
User:Egm4313.s12.team1.armanious

Team page
 * 1) scrap work
 * 2) Level 2

title: User:Egm4313.s12.team1.armanious


text:
User:Egm4313.s12.team3

Team Reports Current Versions
Report 1: [] Report 2: [] Report 3 Report 4 Report 5 Report 6 Report 7

Team Members
Leader: Brian Katz Co-Leader: Brad Pliskow Member: Kyle Droll Member: Tyler Rountree Member: Brian Landers Member: David Guzy Member: Adam Chaffee

title: User:Egm4313.s12.team3


text:
User:Egm4313.s12.team15.jschulze

Important Links
DJVU Notes

Latex Code Generator Page

 Lecture plan.

Report table.

Writing tools

Other courses

Team 15

Reports

Report 1

Report 2

Report 3

Report 4

Report 5

Report 6

title: User:Egm4313.s12.team15.jschulze


text:
User:Egm4313.s12.team5.north

My name is John Cameron North. I will answer to either John or Cameron.

title: User:Egm4313.s12.team5.north


text:
User:Egm4313.s12.team8.colocar

Chad Colocar /R1.6/ /R2.5/ /R3.7/ /R4.3/ /R5.1/ /R6.5/ /R7.1/ /Other/

title: User:Egm4313.s12.team8.colocar


text:
User:EGM6321.f09.team1.Zhichao Gong

Mtg2

Mtg4

Mtg6

Mtg8

Mtg10

Mtg12

Mtg14

Mtg16

Mtg18

Mtg20

Mtg22

Mtg24

Mtg28

title: User:EGM6321.f09.team1.Zhichao Gong


text:
User:Egm4313.s12.team1/r1

Do work, son.

title: User:Egm4313.s12.team1/r1


text:
Video journalism

Print this study schedule as a book

Video Journalism will assist you to develop a video news story that may have the density for further development, to become a current affairs piece and ultimately a documentary film. This study schedule, therefore, is a production process that an independent video journalist can follow with the view to broadcasting their work through reputable news outlets, or disseminating it through online open source news media channels like Wikinews.

The process here focuses on script writing and the ability to grammatically sequence pictures, firstly in script form, so that meaning is conveyed with clarity and impact. This is also to assist others, like editors working on the story, to understand the intentions of the journalist. This schedule will assist you in developing advanced skills in writing, editing, producing and presenting information for video, and in video. You can follow a sequence of development from the news story, through to a more developed current affairs story, and onto a refined documentary. Everything here is underpinned by relevant theory in video making and camera ethics.

We trust that you will find this study schedule stimulating and relevant to your aspirations and interests. The future of video news, current affairs and documentary, will see freelance and sole operators using portable digital-video technology and the methods extolled in this course.

Best wishes in your study and always enjoy reading moving pictures.

Assignments

 * 1) /Identify a news story/ - Identify a news story to develop into a current affairs story and onwards to a documentary. Provide a brief synopsis of your intentions and aspirations with this study schedule.
 * 2) /Produce a news story/ -  Research the news story, develop a first draft script for review by a Chief of Staff Reviewer, refine the script to a paper edit, and produce the video news story.
 * 3) /Develop a current affairs story/ - Develop a synopsis and script for the current affairs story, provide rushes of material shot or gathered from archives and libraries and include a treatment for the production
 * 4) /Script a documentary/ - Research and develop a treatment and script for a documentary. Provide notes and references verifying research and evidence of re-writes. If possible, show raw video footage to illustrate the developing documentary film.

Objectives

 * 1) Understand theory and ethics applied to video journalism
 * 2) Identify a story with news-worthiness
 * 3) Produce a video news script
 * 4) Develop a current affairs script and treatment
 * 5) Develop a documentary script and treatment

Topics

 * 1) /A Picture's Worth/ - Introduction, epistemology and the gaze
 * 2) /The Camera's Eye/ - Camera, direction and voice
 * 3) /Constructing Vision/ - Understand editing and script writing for better shooting
 * 4) /Telling Stories/ - Narrative television, everyday, documentary and factual television
 * 5) /Editing Grammar/ - What happens to meaning when conveyed in a television story
 * 6) /Ethics of the Gaze/

Resources

 * /Release/ - This release assists in obtaining informed consent for filmed material like interviews. It will also serve as a release for copyright material, like photographs, music, audio, video and art-works.

 * Video News Template - Make your own copy of this template and use it in your news assignments.

 * The News Manual - The News Manual is a free online resource for journalists, would-be journalists, educators and people interested in the media. It has developed from the three-volume book 'The News Manual', which was published with the help of UNESCO as a practical guide to people entering the profession and to support mid-career journalists wanting to improve their skills.

 * Script Example Delinquent Angel Documentary - This script should be used as a guide to writing your documentary script. Note: the script is about 50 pages, each page represents about 1 minute playing time for the resultant film. The final film is quite different to the script, as in process the editor makes new interpretations, but the script is necessary to provide to everyone involved, including the editor and the funding body. The script therefore at this stage is a legal entity representing the film as envisaged.

 * John Perceval: an ethical representation of a delinquent angel - This PhD thesis (pdf) is an depth examination of the filmmaking process and how it might best be approached. The thesis discusses a process of making a documentary film and how that journey was fraught with ethical and legal dilemmas, arriving eventually at the second and broadcast (SBS TV Australia) version of Delinquent Angel. Despite this, the process saw the film receive considerable acclaim, with the film selected for international film festivals and nominated for awards. The Delinquent Angel film therefore became a fine case study to examine the process of filmmaking, which might otherwise be entitled: “Non-fiction Filmmaking: How to Minimize Harm in a Dangerous Profession”. The PhD asserts that if ethical standards are met in filmmaking, or indeed television journalism, it is more likely that costly legal problems will be minimised for the future.

 * The Data Journalism Handbook - Leading data journalists from the New York Times, the Guardian, the BBC, and other media organisations from around the world, are working together to answer questions on accurately using data in journalism in the Data Journalism Handbook. The handbook is the first comprehensive practical guide to data journalism.

Research
This course is research lead. That is, we conduct research in journalism and online learning, and make changes to this course based on what we find. Below is a list of publications that have influenced the thinking behind this course.

 * 1) Learning skills in journalistic skepticism while recognising whistleblowers
 * 2) Wikinews - a safe haven for learning journalism, free of the usual suspects of spin and commercial agendas
 * 3) Beyond journalism: Theorizing the transformation of journalism

title: Video journalism


text:
Draft:Original research/Attribution and copyright

Attribution or credit means to let everyone know who a piece of knowledge, even as small as a "least publishable unit", is from. Copyright is a matter of permission.

Attributions
"Attribution is an important part of these licenses [Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License or GNU Free Documentation License]. We consider it giving credit where credit is due – to authors like yourself. When you contribute text, you agree to be attributed in any of the following fashions:
 * 1) Through hyperlink (where possible) or URL to the article to which you contributed (since each article has a history page that lists all authors and editors);
 * 2) Through hyperlink (where possible) or URL to an alternative, stable online copy that is freely accessible, which conforms with the license, and which provides credit to the authors in a manner equivalent to the credit given on the Project website; or
 * 3) Through a list of all authors (but please note that any list of authors may be filtered to exclude very small or irrelevant contributions)."

On "each edit page we have "By clicking the “Save Page” button, you are agreeing to the Terms of Use and the Privacy Policy, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.""

Copyrights
"Copyright records serve a variety of information needs from finding the current owner of a work to a survey of cultural development in the United States. Users of the records approach them in different ways depending on their particular need at the moment. Similarly, there are different approaches to how we can make the currently non-digital Copyright records available online. The general notion right now is to create a data record with enough information to allow title, name, and assigned number searching with links to images of the respective paper records including the catalog cards, applications, transfer and assignment records, and other related items."

Theory of attribution and copyright
Def. an "explicit or formal acknowledgment of ownership or authorship" is called attribution.

Def. the "right by law to be the entity which determines who may publish, copy and distribute a piece of writing, music, picture or other work of authorship" is called copyright.

Least publishable units
A "least publishable unit" (LPU) is an older expression for the smallest possible fact that has been determined to be a fact that just might be publishable, and has not as yet been published.

LPUs seem to be everywhere yet each one probably has an originator who may have included it in a published context somewhere. When one occurs in a text without attribution to an earlier source, the author including it usually gets the credit, and the honor, of introducing that little fact to everyone.

Some LPUs require extensive research and exploration to determine what they are and prove that they are. The phrase "dominant group" initially appears to be an LPU. Its earliest origin on Wikipedia is not known.

Attributions in copyrights
Attribution in copyright law, is acknowledgement as credit the author of a work which is used or appears in another work. Attribution is sometimes required by licenses that specific the usage rights, such as the GNU Free Documentation License and Creative Commons licenses.

Attribution is often considered the most basic of requirements made by a license, as it allows an author to accumulate a positive reputation that partially repays their work and prevents others from claiming fraudulently to have produced the work. It is widely regarded as a sign of decency and respect to acknowledge the creator by giving him/her credit for the work.

Exclusive rights
Def. the "power, granted by the government to persons, to allow or disallow others from taking certain actions (through legal force)" is called exclusive right.

Plagiarisms
Def. the "act of plagiarizing: the copying of another person's ideas, text or other creative work, and presenting it as one's own, especially without permission" is called plagiarism.

Here's a simple example: from the Wikipedia entry about Edmond Halley, "In 1718 he discovered the proper motion of the "fixed" stars by comparing his astrometric measurements with those given in Ptolemy's Almagest." A least publishable unit is that Halley had a copy of the Almagest available to him that he compared his efforts to. While it makes sense considering his position at the University of Oxford, he'd have access, but how did anyone know that he made this comparison? This little tiny fact (hopefully) has no attribution or citation. Okay, maybe the fact is in the PUBLIC DOMAIN. I want to know who found that out or where that little fact came from. While it may not be plagiarism that no citation for this little fact is given, one may have to search high and low to find out. Worse, let's say someone just found this out by reviewing an old handwritten note left in the University of Oxford archives that Halley really did this. Whoever found this out has had a part of their soul stolen and appropriated by whomever put this in the article without a citation.

"If you have referred material from the writings of earlier scholars, please be bold enough to give the reference. Not doing so is plagiarism - an academic sin which must be avoided at all costs." "The act of stealing from the writings of another person and passing the material off as one’s own is a form of intellectual property theft. In other words, plagiarism is an act of fraud. It involves both stealing someone else’s work and pretending that this is to be one’s own and, lying about it afterward."

“Plagiarism is the act of using the words of another without giving the originator credit.” Yes, but more importantly is the phrase "put it into your own words". Briefly this means some kind of factual synonymy. But, the 'synonymizer' didn't determine the fact, the apparent originator who put it in the literature did. "Within these quotes is a short sentence that may contain a fact, even a little tiny inconspicuous fact."[1] Let's say the quotes were left off, who cares why, but the citation [1] is still there. Credit has been given! No plagiarism. It's better with the quotes there but in the past and in some disciplines quotes are forbidden, but the citation is not. What about the synonymy "put it in your own words". Not an excuse to uncite anything. I don't care whether the synonymizer understands the fact or not. I want to know where the synonymizer got it from. And, the person who determined that fact is going to want to know why the cite was left off.

Some authors, editors, writers, article creators "think that changing the words is sufficient to avoid plagiarism." So they leave off the citation.

"Plagiarism also can be an unintentional or accidental [act] when there is careless omission of citations and failure in using quotation marks".

Everyone makes mistakes too! But, here's the important part. Let's say someone writes 100 sentences that should have an attribution or citation after them or within them somewhere and misses one. Is that plagiarism? Well, for that one sentence, yes. But, the other 99 are cited. The rule of thumb is "beyond reasonable doubt", that's better than 98% certainty. So is it beyond reasonable doubt that the author who wrote those 100 sentences is not plagiarizing. Yes! Should we go after the author for that one - no! But if you find it let the author know so it can be cited. If you don't, you could be considered an accessory after the fact. In addition, give the author the benefit of the doubt (assume good faith, AGF). It's not only the good thing to do, in many countries, it's the law - to do anything else may be a serious crime! When the author is no longer with Wikipedia, Wikiversity, or other Wikimedia resources, then it's up to you. You found it, please have the courage to fix it (be bold). At the other extreme is to put the whole page up for deletion (AfD) on Wikipedia, (RfD) on Wikiversity, where each Wikimedia resource may have its own version.

Intellectual properties
Def. any "product of someone's intellect that has commercial value" is called intellectual property.

Intellectual property (IP) is a term referring to a number of distinct types of creations of the mind for which a set of exclusive rights are recognized under the corresponding fields of law. Under intellectual property law, owners are granted certain exclusive rights to a variety of intangible assets, such as musical, literary, and artistic works; discoveries and inventions; and words, phrases, symbols, and designs.

Common intellectual property can be observed as discoveries or inventions; names of original, created characters or objects; original, created words or phrases; original images, designs, or symbols; and original musical, literary, and artistic works.

Copyright violations
Def. the "unauthorized use of copyrighted material in a manner that violates one of the copyright owner's exclusive rights, such as the right to reproduce or perform the copyrighted work, or to make derivative works that build upon it" is called copyright infringement.

“One of the least understood laws that affects or potentially affects perhaps 90% of the school teachers in the country is the Copyright Act.” “The primary violations are of two types: illegal copying and illegal display or performance.” “Illegal copying occurs when public educators copy music, poetry, literature, current news articles, and computer software without permission of the copyright holder.”

Often a copyright notice will say "whole or in part", so how much is that? Whole is the easy one. So don't copy the whole thing without permission, unless it's been proven to be in the PUBLIC DOMAIN. Even when it is I still like to give credit with a Credit: line, as for images. There are arguments pro and con about copyright and payment. Usually there's an initial lump sum, salary, or wage, sometimes followed by a royalty, say 5% for each individual reuse of the whole thing, or for a neat part design the assembly line manufacture of which is being used on automobiles. But not forever with every penny you have.

What about the 'part' part? Usually, that refers to one page of many. Of course, if the entire thing is one page, then copying it is a violation without consent, when it's copyrighted. But, sentences that are cited with or without quotes are a part. Here again I use the "beyond reasonable doubt" principle. Let's say an article has 10,000 words and I quote 150 in ten sentences either all together or scattered about. And, I cite them. The part used is less than 2%. Is it a copyright violation? I say no. It's Fair Use. Even more than that is something most don't think about. I'm citing the source. The usual argument is that by taking any small part I've lowered the value of the creator's work. No, what I've done is increase the value of the creator's work. Because anyone who reads what I've written knows where it came from and can check it out. Every time that happens, the original and its creator have their value increased. From an author's perspective, the worst that can happen is no one reads what you've written any more. Now that's zero value or even negative value. It's just a journal on a shelf, now in microfiche, or in a memory chip somewhere, maybe.

It has been written that “any work can be reduced to plagiarism if enough research is done.” Paraphrasing this regarding copyright, 'any work can be reduced to copyright violation if enough research is done.' This is where the nebulous concepts of 'fair' and 'reasonable'; hence, fair use, come in. Also, within fair use is the idea of "likely to be replaceable by public domain material." This is better providing the PUBLIC DOMAIN text serves the exact same purposes. If it does not, then the referenced source should remain.

Wikipedia and to a lesser extent Wikiversity have an added problem as I see it. Free use suggests that someone eager to make a profit can take anything from these websites with almost no cost and become billionaires. Maybe not! Each such commercial user had better have someone perform due diligence just in case. Do the wikis have a responsibility to profiters or non-profiters to ensure that whatever they take from the wikis is free? Perhaps; hence, the rules in use. Prefer to do no harm and strive for the better good. Unpaid, unsolicited contributory efforts are covered by the 'good samaritan' principle. Does that mean someone won't try to take the contributor to court and take their every dime? No, it means that if they try, the contributor can counter sue them and hopefully win, and collect lawyers fees from them. And the contributor should! But wikimedia will be sued! There is a legal way to separate wikimedia from contributor's efforts and for the contributor to go after the suer.

Short quotations
Here the word 'short' means something less than quoting the full written work. "[T]he right of quotation and criticism ... is a basic prerequisite of any journalist's or scientist's works." "This right should also be effectively protected under the conditions of DRM [Digital Rights Management] and access to the relevant information should not be prevented by technical measures."

"According to Copyright Law of the United States: ... Short quotations of a copyrighted publication may be reproduced without permission in books, articles, and other publications. This is often interpreted as fewer than 250 words (in total) from a book-length work or less than 5% of a journal article." Just to illustrate: all of the quotes from More total 160 words of a total of 5704; i.e., 2.81%. While this is above my preferred less than 2% rule, it is below the 285 words of the 5% rule indicated.

"[T]he French copyright act recognise[s] a right of short quotation". But, "the complete representation of a protected work [is] not covered by the right to make short quotations."

An older ruling by the Landgericht Berlin (District Court) in 1960 indicated that there are "statutory exceptions for quotation" with respect to copyright law. But, "the German Copyright Act [does] not allow quoting protected works in their integrity in the press." "[A]n integral reproduction of caricatures must be allowed under special circumstances, such as political debates, where the possibility to quote the political adversary is necessary."

From the German Constitutional Court back in 1978, of the legislator, "He shall bring into just equation and balance the constitutionally guaranteed requirement of a reasonable use of the creative accomplishment and the interests of the general public worthy of protection". This statement is to provide guidance for resolving conflicts "between the individual proprietary interests and the general cultural, social and political interests arising in the digital environment."

"Considering that DRM systems will most probably affect the general conditions of intellectual freedom in democratic societies this issue is too important to be left to the industry to determine." The Supreme Court of Austria "the (OGH) on 3 October 2000" noted "the exception for the use of copyright protected works in quotations." in the Austrian Copyright Act.

Over on Wikiquote are several quotation guidelines (unreferenced):
 * 1) Length of quotes - "a maximum of 250 words per quote", that's about 20-25 lines from a journal article,
 * 2) Books - "[a] recommended maximum of five lines of prose or eight lines of poetry for every ten pages of a book not in the public domain. This is equal to about 1.25% of the total content of a book."
 * 3) "Adding unsourced quotes to articles will be reverted." - plagiarism!

On Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises/Dissent Brennan are many excellent points regarding use of quotations (Fair Use) by Supreme Court Justice Brennan. Also, Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises/Opinion of the Court contains a few additional, albeit limited points. The case was actually focused on using quotes prior to original publication as a violation of copyright, but the justices took the opportunity to clarify the fair use issue to some extent.

Policy and laws
All of the following points are at present opinion only.

"True copyright violation is a matter of policy".

 * 1) Within the boundaries of the United States of America, excepting ambassadorial stations, no entity, corporate, non-profit, or otherwise, can legislate (make policy) against the Constitution, Bill of Rights, constitutional legislative law, or case law.
 * 2) Standard operating procedures (SOPs), statements of policy (SoPs), or other similar internal policies cannot contradict, suggest, or appear to suggest contradiction to point 1 above. They are considered legal documents that indicate entity compliance with stated laws.

Calumny
Defamation—also called calumny, vilification, traducement, slander (for transitory statements), and libel (for written, broadcast, or otherwise published words)—is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, or nation a negative image. It is usually a requirement that this claim be false and that the publication is communicated to someone other than the person defamed (the claimant). "In other words, making a negative statement about another person is not defamation unless the statement is false and represents something as a fact (for example, 'Vladik cheats on his taxes') rather than a personal opinion (for example, 'Vladik is a jerk')." "Simplifying a very complicated decision, the court said that because the plaintiff must prove a statement is false in order to win an action in defamation, it is impossible to win an action in defamation if the statement, by its very nature, cannot be proven false." "A statement can only be defamatory if it is false; therefore true statements of fact about others, regardless of the damage rendered, are not defamatory (although such comments might represent other sorts of privacy or hate speech violations). Defamation may occur when one party (the eventual defendant if a case goes forward) writes or says something that is false about a second party (plaintiff) such that some third party "receives" the communication, and the communication of false information damages the plaintiff". "There are five essential elements to defamation: (1) The accusation is false; and (2) it impeaches the subject's character; and (3) it is published to a third person; and (4) it damages the reputation of the subject; and (5) that the accusation is done intentionally or with fault such as wanton disregard of facts."

Libels
Libel refers to any other form of communication such as written words or images.

"Libel refers to written defamatory statements; slander refers to oral statements. Libel encompasses communications occurring in 'physical form'... defamatory statements on records and computer tapes are considered libel rather than slander."

Most jurisdictions allow legal actions, civil and/or criminal, to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against groundless criticism.

False light laws are "intended primarily to protect the plaintiff's mental or emotional well-being." If a publication of information is false, then a tort of defamation might have occurred. If that communication is not technically false but is still misleading, then a tort of false light might have occurred.

In most civil law jurisdictions, defamation is dealt with as a crime rather than a tort.

Libel is defined as defamation by written or printed words, pictures, or in any form other than by spoken words or gestures. The law of libel originated in the 17th century in England. With the growth of publication came the growth of libel and development of the tort of libel.

There are several ways a person must go about proving that libel has taken place. For example, in the United States, the person first must prove that the statement was false. Second, that person must prove that the statement caused harm. And, third, they must prove that the statement was made without adequate research into the truthfulness of the statement. These steps are for an ordinary citizen.

Usurpations
Def.
 * 1) "the wrongful seizure of something by force, especially of sovereignty or other authority" ,
 * 2) "trespass onto another's property without permission" or
 * 3) a "taking or use without right" is called an usurpation.

If "warranted neither by the letter nor by the spirit of the supreme law of the land and is, therefore, rank usurpation."

Under constitutional law, particularly in Canada and the United States, constitutions give federal and provincial or state governments various powers. To go outside those powers would be ultra vires.

Consensus and majority rule:

While usually majority or plurality rule is acceptable, it cannot violate point 1 above. Nor can any majority, plurality, or consensus determination force any group, minority, or individual against point 1.

Written expression in defense of civil or individual liberties guaranteed by point 1 above cannot be abridged by majority, plurality, consensus, group, minority, or individual.

Hypotheses

 * 1) Civil liberties cannot be given away by contract to an employer.
 * 2) Constitutionally justified rights and civil liberties cannot be given away voluntarily.