Generation M: Media in the Lives of 8-18 Year Olds

“Generation M: Media in the Lives of 8-18 Year Olds” is a study published in 2005 by the Kaiser Family Foundation, a non-profit organization that focuses on health care issues/policy in the United States. The study focuses on the role of media and technology in the lives of 8-18 year olds during the time when it was conducted, and how that role has changed from earlier years. Specifically, it concentrates on the amount of media usage of young people, including time spent watching TV, playing video games, and using a computer. The study also collected data on such factors as how many televisions were in the household, how (and if) media usage was limited, if the young person had their own television/video game system, etc. Some facts and figures: 68% of kids surveyed had their own televisions, 31% had their own computer, and less than half said their family has rules concerning TV watching/video game playing/listening to music. On average, kids spent nearly 6.5 hours a day engaging in the use of media, over four hours of which was spent in front of the television.

The main purpose of the study is to highlight the importance of media in today’s youth: “Without question, this generation truly is the media generation, devoting more than a quarter of each day to media…anything that takes up this much space in young people’s lives deserves our full attention.” Past this however, the paper refrains from making judgments or calling for a certain action. The main focus is simply to study the media usage patterns of young people and report them to the academic world, as well as the public at large, for the purpose of further study and action on the part of others in response to this data. From the website of the Kaiser Family Foundation, “We serve as a non-partisan source of facts, information, and analysis for policymakers, the media, the health care community, and the public.” Overall, what the Kaiser Family Foundation has at stake in the presentation of these findings is the building and maintenance of their image as a reliable source of relevant information.

Inquiry

Based upon the data being presented, I would certainly agree with the claim made by the Kaiser Family Foundation that media plays a central role in the lives of our youth. Even before reading the data in the paper, it was clear to me how prevalent media is in our society, especially with young people. I myself engage in the use of media quite heavily, especially as a college student. My computer is essential to a successful experience here as an undergraduate student, and that is something that won’t change as my college career progresses. All of the information, assignments, essays, etc. that I need to do well in all of my classes are stored in this one machine, which I use even now as I respond to this study. I would also agree with the claim that the role of media in the lives of young people is a very important one, and that with these figures in mind, steps should be taken to make sure that media usage is regulated in such as way as to be as beneficial as possible for people growing up. There is a line between the abuse of technology and the various forms of entertainment and communication available, and the use of it in such a way as to enrich one’s life.

Discussion Questions

1. How important of a role would you say media plays in your life?

2. Do you believe that media, in general, is too prevalent in our society/culture, especially for young people (ages 8-18)?

3. What steps should be taken to increase the benefits that media has in kids’ lives/what steps should be taken to reduce any harmful effects that media may have on kids?

Toward an Epistemology of Wikipedia by Don Fallis

Summary:

Don Fallis is a professor here at the UA with the School Information Resources and Library Science. He has a PhD in Philosophy. In his article, Toward an Epistemology of Wikipedia, Fallis explores the validity and reliability of Wikipedia. He claims that the epistemic consequences are good rather than bad, meaning that people are gaining knowledge from it in a good way. The article was included in the Journal for American Society for Information Science and Technology, and a previous version of it was presented at a Computing and Philosophy Conference suggesting that Fallis' primary audience was other scientists or individuals concerned with technology's role in the dissemination of knowledge.

His primary claim being that wikipedia is more reliable and valuable to society's ability to gain knowledge, he first outlines the counter arguments. The main concern with wikipedia is accuracy because anyone can edit it, and they can do so anonymously. Because of this, three problems can arise which include misinformation (unintentional inaccuracy), disinformation (intention of deceit) and “bullshit (indifference about whether something is true or not).” Another concern is that wikipedia discourages experts from contributing because their contribution might be edited, and they do not get proper credit for their work, this is called anti-intellectualism.

Despite these concerns, studies show that most of the information is only slightly less reliable than an encyclopedia like Britannica. In addition, the warnings on wikipedia that some of the information might not be true or complete adds a level of verifiability to wikipedia, possibly making it better epistemically than traditional encyclopedias which more people might be inclined to blindly trust. In addition, because Wikipedia offers other values like power, speed and fecundity (the number of people it reaches), Fallis argues that Wikipedia is actually epistemically more valuable. Because of the capabilities of the medium to allow such mass collaboration, the amount of information on wikipedia greatly exceeds that of other encyclopedia. Mistakes are often corrected very quickly by other users, unlike in other encyclopedias where they could not be corrected until the next edition. Overall, the main problem with wikipedia is not unreliable information, but the incompleteness of information, so wikipedia and other encyclopedias should be used with caution because they do not have all the facts.

Inquiry:

I would have to agree with the claims that Fallis is making because he provides empirical evidence to support it, such as studies that show how much of the information on Wikipedia and Britannica is true. He also provides a thorough overview of the counter arguments and why they are valid or not which leads me to believe that the article was well thought out, and not biased one way or another, but an actual analysis and description of facts.

Questions:

• Do you agree with Fallis? Why or why not? Has your experience with Wikipedia confirmed or denied Fallis' argument? How did you feel about wikipedia prior to reading this article and has your opinion changed?

• The fact that wikipedia is on the internet and used by the wide range of people is both good and bad. Do you agree with Fallis that the benefits of power, speed and fecundity provided by the medium outweigh the costs of potential misinformation?

• I know that I have had multiple professors in both college and high school forbid the use of wikipedia as a source, do you think this article could or should change their minds?

By Kelsie Cady