In my previous reflection, this is what I decided to do in order to get even more out of UOSM2008:
Whilst I’ve successfully commented on more blog posts, unfortunately, I didn’t get a bigger amount of responses which meant I couldn’t learn from more discussions with my peers.
Nevertheless, this is what I did learn from my peers on the topic of fake news…
Learning from others
What I’ve learned from these 2 discussions on my blog post is that I should make my next post clearer and discuss factors like age. I should also consider both the advantages as well as the disadvantages of phenomena such as fake news.
Additionally, interacting with other blog posts opened my eyes to ideas that I didn’t come across throughout my research.
Doug’s post made me realize that there are different types/categories of fake news. This sparked my interest in how various types of information have differing impacts on our online experience. Linking to my discussion with Emily for instance, the following example has a less harmful impact because it’s made for entertainment purposes:
Stefan’s post contributed to my understanding of fake news as he suggested that fake news is defined as:
“relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief” (Stefan’s blog post, 2018)
I found this definition interesting since I defined fake news as deliberate misinformation, rather than directly defining it as shaping public opinion. This added to my view that fake news is difficult to define, and led me to think that getting rid of fake news isn’t the concern, but reducing its influence is.
This week I succeeded in improving my learning experience and blog posts from last time. Here’s how it went:
The most important lesson that this topic has taught me is to not click on just anything online. I’ve fallen for fake news/filter bubbles previously so I’ll make sure I remain cautious and critical. We must be accountable for what we post/share online.
Overall, I’ve learned how to be less digitally naïve!
Word count: 304
- My comment on Chloe’s blog post
- My comment on Doug’s blog post
- My comment on Sam’s blog post
- My comment on Stefan’s blog post
Bibliography (in-source references included)
Carter, B. (2013). Kimmel Fools Internet With Video of Twerking Gone Wrong, The New York Times. [online]. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/11/business/media/kimmel-fools-internet-with-video-of-twerking-gone-wrong.html?ref=oembed [Accessed 12 March 2018].
FutureLearn (2018). Learning in the Network Age, Future Learn website, University of Southampton. [online]. Available at: https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/learning-network-age/ [Accessed 9 March 2018].
Ingram, M. (2016) Most Student Can’t Tell the Difference Between Fake and Real News, Study Finds. Fortune [online]. Available at: http://fortune.com/2016/11/23/stanford-fake-news/ [Accessed 10 March 2018].
McGregor, J. (2017) Two Reasons Fake News is Good for Society. Forbes [online], Available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jaymcgregor/2017/02/07/why-fake-news-is-actually-good-for-the-world/#10b7ddae3771 [Accessed 18 March 2018].
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants Part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), pp.1-6. [online]. Available at: https://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf [Accessed 10 February 2018].