Does American culture give it an edge in the race for Innovation? A look at history and its implications:
The myth of the innovation nation | David Rothkopf
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Friday, January 21, 2011
Finding Cheaper Textbooks: 2nd Edition - NYTimes.com
Finally, you say, Avallone posts something useful!
Finding Cheaper Textbooks: 2nd Edition - NYTimes.com
Finding Cheaper Textbooks: 2nd Edition - NYTimes.com
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Obama to Meet With President Hu Jintao of China - NYTimes.com
An important relationship for the US that encompasses military, economic and political challenges by a rising China.
Obama to Meet With President Hu Jintao of China - NYTimes.com
Obama to Meet With President Hu Jintao of China - NYTimes.com
Monday, January 17, 2011
Stores Like Target and CVS Add Groceries to Attract Shoppers - NYTimes.com
Expaning consumer options means strategic decision-making and more competetition.
Stores Like Target and CVS Add Groceries to Attract Shoppers - NYTimes.com
Stores Like Target and CVS Add Groceries to Attract Shoppers - NYTimes.com
Friday, January 14, 2011
A Duane Reade in Brooklyn With a Beer Bar - NYTimes.com
Good example of 'micro-marketing' and 'staying close to your customer. Is it a viable means of growing a business? Can we build in efficiencies and economies of scale this way?
A Duane Reade in Brooklyn With a Beer Bar - NYTimes.com
A Duane Reade in Brooklyn With a Beer Bar - NYTimes.com
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Using Wikipedia
THIS IS A MUST READ FOR ALL OF US - TO THE END - GOOD ADVICE WHEN WRITING PAPERS AND RESEARCHING....
Record - Bergen Edition 01/12/2011, Page F1
Library pros are wary of Wikipedia
By JIM BECKERMAN
STAFF WRITER
Wikipedia, according to Wikipedia, is “a free, Web¬based, collaborative, multilingual encyclopedia project.” But the reference librarians we checked with would want a second source on that.
“Personally, I don’t rely on Wikipedia, because of peo¬ple’s ability to go in and edit anybody’s text and change the history,” says Karen Sharp, senior librarian and web¬master at the Wayne Public Library.
Wikipedia, which comes (according to Wikipedia) from the Hawaiian word “wiki” — “quick” — joined to the “pedia” from “encyclopedia,” was launched 10 years ago this Saturday by founders Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger. Since that time, reportedly 365 million readers have pored over 17 million articles – all written by volunteer contributors – on subjects ranging from Aachen (“spa town in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany”) to zymology (“scientific term for fermentation”).
Wikipedia has profoundly changed the way most of us gather information. It may have had less effect on the people whose job it is to look things up: reference librarians. Yes, they’ll use it sometimes, they told us. But with misgivings, and never as a sole source.
“We use it as a backup,” says Sharon Castanteen, director of the Johnson Free Public Library in Hackensack, who has a background in reference. “We’ll start with that, get some ideas from it, but we won’t trust it 100 percent.”
Distrust in W ikipedia, of course, varies from librarian to librarian. Some said they employed it, to some degree, in 10 to 20 percent of their searches. Others, like director Gina Webb-Metz of the Tenafly Public Library, put the number at more like 5 percent.
“If I just want some quick background information, I’ll use it and then verify [the information] on another site,” said Webb-Metz, also a research librarian.
The issue with Wikipedia isn’t comprehensiveness – it can go into more depth on more subjects than any print reference work could hope to. Nor is it even accuracy: “Encyclopedia Britannica” has been known to make mistakes, too.
The real issue, for professionals, is simply that Wikipedia isn’t vetted by experts. There is no guarantee how reliable any of its entries are. And because the bar is so low – despite certain safeguards built into the site – it is also easy prey to abuse. “ If you look up Walmart on Wikipedia, you’re going to see what the PR department of Walmart wants you to see,” says Richard Kearney, electronic resources librarian at the David and Lorraine Cheng Library, William Paterson University, Wayne.
“Entries on corporations and governments on Wikipedia are continuously monitored by representatives of those entities, and they put a spin on it,” Kearney says. “There is an extent to which Wikipedia tries to inform people of things that are controversial or disputed. They put those warnings up there, and that’s fine. But do people look at those?” Ultimately, say these professionals, it’s not that people use Wikipedia, but how people use Wikipedia, that is problematic. Most Wiki-entries, for instance, end with a long list of primary sources that can be invaluable for research. Some librarians use Wikipedia in just this way: as a springboard for more thorough investigation.
But Wikipedia, because it is so easy and available, is highly tempting for students, journalists on deadline and others too pressed or too lazy to dig deeper than the initial entry. That just ratchets up a problem that librarians, teachers and others have long tried to combat: the tendency for readers to believe everything they see in print.
“Even in print, you have to verify,” Sharp says. “But the print resources we have are from reputable publishers, whereas Wikipedia you don’t know the publishers. You have to verify things.”
Record - Bergen Edition 01/12/2011, Page F1
Library pros are wary of Wikipedia
By JIM BECKERMAN
STAFF WRITER
Wikipedia, according to Wikipedia, is “a free, Web¬based, collaborative, multilingual encyclopedia project.” But the reference librarians we checked with would want a second source on that.
“Personally, I don’t rely on Wikipedia, because of peo¬ple’s ability to go in and edit anybody’s text and change the history,” says Karen Sharp, senior librarian and web¬master at the Wayne Public Library.
Wikipedia, which comes (according to Wikipedia) from the Hawaiian word “wiki” — “quick” — joined to the “pedia” from “encyclopedia,” was launched 10 years ago this Saturday by founders Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger. Since that time, reportedly 365 million readers have pored over 17 million articles – all written by volunteer contributors – on subjects ranging from Aachen (“spa town in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany”) to zymology (“scientific term for fermentation”).
Wikipedia has profoundly changed the way most of us gather information. It may have had less effect on the people whose job it is to look things up: reference librarians. Yes, they’ll use it sometimes, they told us. But with misgivings, and never as a sole source.
“We use it as a backup,” says Sharon Castanteen, director of the Johnson Free Public Library in Hackensack, who has a background in reference. “We’ll start with that, get some ideas from it, but we won’t trust it 100 percent.”
Distrust in W ikipedia, of course, varies from librarian to librarian. Some said they employed it, to some degree, in 10 to 20 percent of their searches. Others, like director Gina Webb-Metz of the Tenafly Public Library, put the number at more like 5 percent.
“If I just want some quick background information, I’ll use it and then verify [the information] on another site,” said Webb-Metz, also a research librarian.
The issue with Wikipedia isn’t comprehensiveness – it can go into more depth on more subjects than any print reference work could hope to. Nor is it even accuracy: “Encyclopedia Britannica” has been known to make mistakes, too.
The real issue, for professionals, is simply that Wikipedia isn’t vetted by experts. There is no guarantee how reliable any of its entries are. And because the bar is so low – despite certain safeguards built into the site – it is also easy prey to abuse. “ If you look up Walmart on Wikipedia, you’re going to see what the PR department of Walmart wants you to see,” says Richard Kearney, electronic resources librarian at the David and Lorraine Cheng Library, William Paterson University, Wayne.
“Entries on corporations and governments on Wikipedia are continuously monitored by representatives of those entities, and they put a spin on it,” Kearney says. “There is an extent to which Wikipedia tries to inform people of things that are controversial or disputed. They put those warnings up there, and that’s fine. But do people look at those?” Ultimately, say these professionals, it’s not that people use Wikipedia, but how people use Wikipedia, that is problematic. Most Wiki-entries, for instance, end with a long list of primary sources that can be invaluable for research. Some librarians use Wikipedia in just this way: as a springboard for more thorough investigation.
But Wikipedia, because it is so easy and available, is highly tempting for students, journalists on deadline and others too pressed or too lazy to dig deeper than the initial entry. That just ratchets up a problem that librarians, teachers and others have long tried to combat: the tendency for readers to believe everything they see in print.
“Even in print, you have to verify,” Sharp says. “But the print resources we have are from reputable publishers, whereas Wikipedia you don’t know the publishers. You have to verify things.”
Monday, January 10, 2011
Facebook Wins Relatively Few Friends in Japan - NYTimes.com
A US company facing challenges entering a foreign market - not unusual, but here some barriers are cultural. What are the chances of a successful market entry?
Facebook Wins Relatively Few Friends in Japan - NYTimes.com
Facebook Wins Relatively Few Friends in Japan - NYTimes.com
Sunday, January 9, 2011
Vietnam Confronts Economic Quagmire - NYTimes.com
A view that incorporates economics, politics, culture, sociology, and more about one of the most beautiful countries I have ever experienced:
Vietnam Confronts Economic Quagmire - NYTimes.com
Vietnam Confronts Economic Quagmire - NYTimes.com
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Six Companies That Did Not Survive 2010 - NYTimes.com
Cautionary tales for all you future Entrepreneurs. Interesting, most of these folks have started another small business!
Six Companies That Did Not Survive 2010 - NYTimes.com
Six Companies That Did Not Survive 2010 - NYTimes.com
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
ESPN announcer dismissed over comments - CNN.com
Remember, business students, professionalism and respect every moment!
ESPN announcer dismissed over comments - CNN.com
ESPN announcer dismissed over comments - CNN.com
American Airlines in Fight With Orbitz and Expedia - NYTimes.com
A battle to control costs, access, distribution and marketing of a product that is tremendously influenced by evolving technology. Fascinating applications across industries:
American Airlines in Fight With Orbitz and Expedia - NYTimes.com
American Airlines in Fight With Orbitz and Expedia - NYTimes.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
