How would you as a reader believe in what you are reading and how important is it for you to rely on your readings to form knowledge of the information in the text? I requote Plato “Knowledge is justified true belief”. What characteristics of the readings underpin the so-called justification for your belief?
Before this course, I believed in what I read unless there is an amusing difference with reality or at least what I presumed to be real. Now, I learned that scholarly work should substantiate every statement it makes and present it credibly. If I seek respect in a scholarly world, I must appreciate the academic community and its resources. It is taxing to scan and read the amount of available literature. I often find myself pearl diving and bunny hopping from one source to another.
a more thorough theorization of the new possibilities for scholarship, and by extension, effective activism made possible by digital media, as opposed to merely replicating old questions in new contexts or vice versa (Howard-Spink, 2009,p.426, para.3)
The digital media is both boon and a bane in the process.With the advent of digital media, a reader may choose to access information to quench the thirst for knowledge and in the process, lose the track of time and authenticity, become a victim of piracy and infringements. Thus a critical evaluation of the text we are accessing as well as producing is necessary.
An author of any kind must be aware that there is a responsibility associated with the authorship, be conscious of accountability and ownership. Horrors like plagiarism collusion of information not only damages the reputation of the author but also warrants repercussions. To maintain the integrity and respect of the academic community, an author must adhere to the philosophy of scholarship and open their work for critical analysis.
Howard-Spink, S. (2009). Book Review: Hall, G. (2008). Digitize This Book! The Politics of New Media, or Why We Need Open Access Now. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. 301 pages, $19.95. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 33(4), 424–428. http://doi.org/10.1177/0196859909341759