My Almost 11 year old wants a Facebook account…

and she’s really not very happy about my husband’s and my decision that she cannot have one, but tough kitties.  I say that there are rules for a reason, and one of the rules when signing up for a facebook account states that you must be 13 years of age.  Sure, more than half of my daughters’ classmates have accounts, and they’re not 13, but I’m a geek.  A rule-follower.  A nerd.  Whatever.  My husband said she can have an account when she finishes college, so she should be more angry with him.  I know that my daughter is a good kid, and I trust her.  It’s some of the other kids she’ll be connecting with that I don’t trust, and I am kind of paranoid.  I read a story about 2 months ago about a 14 year old girl in England who intended to invite 15 of her friends to her 15^th birthday party.  In error, she ticked off a box, allowing anyone to view and RSVP to this “public event”.  Now her personal information, including her address were online for the world to see.  She received 21,000 RSVPs to her party.   Although the original invitation was removed from the site, a new version was visible to all Facebook users a few days later.  This new version was not created by the girl herself but her address was again posted on the site for all to see.   The party was cancelled and there was a large police presence staked outside the girls’ home at the time the party was to start.  It scares the be-jeezus out of me, how one simple ticking of a box can compromise privacy and safety.  Here’s the article. Check it out:

http://technolog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/09/21/5150049-teen-posts-birthday-party-invite-on-facebook-and-21000-rsvp

Midterm Blog--What I learned from Wikipedia

 I personally don’t believe that Wikipedia should be used as a scholarly source.  I think that Wikipedia is a good place to go for quick, basic information, and that it’s a great place to start when looking for more information on a topic.  However, I think that if scholarly information is sought, further research needs to take place.  I would further investigate the sources of information used in the Wikipedia entry itself, and look through the citations and choosing those that are most relevant to my study.

While I believe that Wikipedia has more strengths than weaknesses, the weaknesses are great and can't be ignored.  Its strengths are that it is free, and easily available to anyone, anytime, 24/7.  All you need is an internet connection.  It’s easy to look something up on Wikipedia—anything, really.  There’s no need to schlep to the library to look through an encyclopedia.  You can usually find up-to-date information on Wikipedia, and often, with current events, articles are entered almost immediately.   Anyone can write an article, contribute to an article, or edit an article.  (These are both strengths and weaknesses).

The weaknesses of Wikipedia are that the information on there is only as good and reliable as the authors and their references.   It is not perfect, and there are errors on there.   The content is not 100 percent reliable.    The fact that anyone can edit an entry on Wikipedia is both a blessing and a curse.  There are people out there who will anonymously add erroneous information, promote their own personal agenda, or sabotage an entry for whatever reason.  

Technology will continue to provide us with greater access to needed information, but we always need to be on our toes.  We cannot let ourselves trust everything we read, 100 percent.  Just because it’s online doesn’t mean it’s true or correct.   Human relationships can be affected by technology in many ways.   In this day and age, people often prefer to communicate via email or text, rather than by making a phone call.  In addition, cyber relationships are very common, and “real life” relationships can suffer because of the online ones.  One can weave a very tangled web if they’re not careful!  I read something online a few weeks ago, and I think that Michael Barkey from the Washington Post summed it all up nicely when he said, “Humans are blessed with the power to make choices for themselves. How each of us chooses to respond to new opportunities depends wholly upon the values we seek to promote in our lives. People are what define a community and information technology is only another tool to help express who we are.”

The Digitalization of Your Health Information

In our ever-evolving technological world, it was only a matter of time before hospitals made the conversion from paper charting and medical records to computerized charting and electronic medical records. This is something that's here to stay, whether or not we like it. Few other industries still rely on paper records.

The President's plan to re-design the nation's healthcare system is controversial. The Obama administration has set aside $46 billion to help doctors and hospitals with the costs to go electronic. This is a reimbursment--they still have to buy the systems with their own money.

There are many pros and cons to replacing the old fashioned paperwork. Like the title of this article states, computers are not foolproof, and therefore we should not rely on them to be 100 percent correct, 100 percent of the time.

Electronic medical records are used by health care providers, hospitals, clinics, and other sectors of the healthcare industry. Some advantages of using EMRs are the following:

Electronic health records supposedly reduce errors in medical records. Handwritten records are often difficult to decipher due to misspelling, illegibility, and differing terminologies. Up to 100,000 patients in the U.S. alone die in hospitals every year because of medical errors. That's the equivalent of one major airline crash a day, every single day of the year. It is believed that with the increased use of electronic medical records, there will eventually be a standardization of patient health records.

Healthcare providers can get immediate access to an entire chart, so they can quickly read reports, chart notes, and orders easily, without having to take the time to decipher someone's handwriting, and never having to wait for someone to finish using a chart when they need it.

Electronic medical records keep information safe, because papers can easily be lost due to irresponsibility, fire, flood, or other catastrophes. Digital records can be stored forever.

Digitalized records also keep health information that patients tend to forget, such as vaccinations, previous illnesses and medications. They also consolidate all of the data in one place, unlike paper charts/records, where everything is scattered. Computerized records save both time and money, because there won't be as many phone calls, emails, and faxes to get access to records from other places. The computerized records will also prevent medical tests that have already been done from being repeated all over again, incurring unnecessary costs to the patients and the health care system. They also facilitate coordination between health professionals. Coordination between care providers has always been problematic. Computerized records facilitate the coordination of care and continuity of care. The efficiency and speed of diagnosis translates into better health care service for patients. Similar to the previously discussed point, correct and timely information can significantly increase the quality of health care service rendered to patients. They can even save lives.

As you can see, there are many advantages to all the digitalization of medical records. However, there are also some serious disadvantages:

Learning the systems can be tedious and time consuming. Combining computer proficiency and fulfilling patient direct patient care can be challenging each day. Spending time just completing the documentation on the computer can actually lead to less time spent at the bedside, especially if the person isn't very fast on the computer.

Electronic medical records threaten our privacy. People are not comfortable having their entire medical history recorded and digitized for almost just anybody to see. For example, what if a hospital employee was hospitalized and happened to be HIV positive? Do you really think they'd want co-workers to know this? Well, guess what? They can easily find out everything their inquiring minds want to know. Sure, they have no right to do so, but that isn't going to stop them! I remember something that happened when I worked in a hospital about 15 years ago. One of the nurses I worked with was 8 months pregnant, and she developed pre-eclampsia, and subsequently, eclampsia. She was admitted to the hospital in distress. Her baby was saved, and she died. She was only 30 years old. We were all shocked beyond belief. There was no computerized charting, and her paper chart was kept secure. However, almost everyone who worked with her tried to look through her chart! They also went to gawk at this poor woman right after she died. Some even went to the morgue! Everyone came back with stories about how "horrible" she looked, how she "didn't look like the girl we knew", etc....I am proud to say that I wasn't a part of all that, out of respect. My point is that people are curious. OK, downright nosey. And they will try to find out whatever they can, just because. Although I have nothing to hide, the thought of people going through my records just gives me the heebie jeebies.

Medical data can even be used against a person in some cases – whether when applying for job, insurance coverage, or a college scholarship. Although it is against the law to discriminate against people with illnesses and disabilities, it is routinely done. In addition, there are just way too many stories about data hacking, identity theft, blackmail, etc...

In the process of digitalization, the interpersonal aspect in health care may also be lost. In handwritten hospital charts, doctors and other health care practitioners may write what they think and they feel based on their personal observations in their very own words. With computerized charting, one just checks off boxes on electronic forms. Healthcare providers are not always able to express a personal opinion on an individual case. Because of the lack of flexibility of many electronic reporting systems, cases of misclassification of patients and their conditions have been reported. I think that it's very easy to get too comfortable, and just "go through the motions" with the charting, without putting any thought into the patient.

Electronic medical records are still far from being standardized and not as efficient as they are supposed to be. There are over 60 different proprietary programs out there, and they are not necessarily compatible. Records can't always "talk" to one another.

What happens when the computers are "down?" You will need to revert to paper charting, which in and of itself is not a big deal. However, if the system goes down, providers won't have that immediate access to their patients' information.

It is my belief that, like the title of this article states, computers are not foolproof. Therefore, we should not rely on them to be 100 percent correct, 100 percent of the time, or to be the perfect solution to all of our needs.

Made To Break--Technology and Obsolescence in America

Author and historian Giles, we are a society of waste. There is no waste not, want not for us--oh, no. We always want bigger, better, newer. We get rid of things not because we have to, but because we want to. Giles tells readers how, during the 19th century, many new materials were discovered which allowed for the creation of disposable goods. So much for our ethic of conservation and re-use. Enter the big-time manufacturers' profitability of repetitive consumption. Always driven by the almighty dollar. Of course, not all disposable products are evil. We can be eternally grateful for many of the disposable personal/hygiene products invented--diapers, sanitary napkins, and condoms, for example. However, do we REALLY need ALL of the disposable products that are available to us? Not only are we wasting money, but we are destroying the planet we live on.

Slade feels that we dispose of objects out of sheer obsolescence, not because of the objects' failure. He talks about the unethical "planned obsolescence", the deliberate use of shoddy, poor quality materials in products to necessitate their replacement after a short life span that was perfectly planned as such by the manufacturers. Slade also talks about "psychological obsolescence", saying that companies use tactics to stimulate a perpetual dissatisfaction among consumers. We are willing to "trade up" just for style, and not just technological improvements, long before our products are ready for the trashcans. Take clothing/fashion, for example. It's impossible to keep up with the never-ending trends and must-haves. Of course, we may try, and it's very easy to get caught up in it all. We have to keep ourselves from falling into all these traps that are constantly being set up for us. Another example is the iPhone. I have a first generation iPhone, and still love it. I have absolutely no problems with it. However, Apple has since released several newer and "better" versions of the iPhone, trying to lure me in. Yes, it's tempting, but thankfully, I'm not easily swayed.

Slade says it all when he says, "Deliberate obsolescence in all its forms--technological, psychological, or planned--is a uniquely American invention. Not only did we invent disposable products...but we invented the very concept of disposability itself." I think that in today's economy, we need to re-think this obsolescence...we keep digging ourselves into deeper and deeper holes--and these holes, by the way, are already filled with all the other stuff we've tossed away over the years.

The World and Wikipedia: How We Are Editing Reality, Conclusion

I found the second half of Dalby’s book to be less interesting than the first, because it seemed an awful lot like the first half.

Wikipedia claims to be “fair” by maintaining 3 rules for posting: neutrality, verifiability, and no original research. Many contributors adhere to these rules, but many do not. Don't get me wrong--there is a great deal of reliable information to be found on Wikipedia, but there's also a lot of bias, regardless of the “neutrality” rule. Wikipedia also tries to encourage respect and congeniality among those who post however, the “good guys” are often overpowered by the “bad guys”, who are mean and petty people.

Wikipedia is great in that you can pretty much find out about something in real-time articles will be written by someone, somewhere, within hours (or sometimes minutes) of late-breaking news. Whenever you do an internet search, on Google, for example, did you notice the first result shown? Most of the time, it’s the Wikipedia entry on the topic. That’s a huge web presence, and it's definitely impressive.

The ultimate power on Wikipedia belongs to the administrators. They can block entries, as well as delete entries, with a simple click of their mouse. How does one become an administrator, you might wonder? Well, administrators are brought on as such by other administrators. It doesn’t matter how much how much a person has contributed, or what the quality of their contributions have been. If an administrator likes them, they’re “in," and they, too, can be an administrator. Kind of like a school-kid mentality, if you ask me.

One has to wonder why many articles still exist on Wikipedia even though they are one-sided and biased, lacking the neutrality that's supposed to be maintained by Wikipedia. We can thank the administrators for these articles. If the admins like it, regardless of the rules the rest of us must follow, it stays on the site. This reminds me of that school–kid mentality again. Rebellious--rules be damned!

I agree with Dalby when he sums it all up, saying, “No one can claim that Wikipedia, as a whole, is a “reliable source”…We need to judge each article for its reliability on its merits, and “take the crucial detail as unreliable, until we confirm it in an independent source.” This seems like good, sound, and, dare I say it--reliable--advice to me.