Digital Literacy

1 Digital Literacy Student's Name Course Instructor Affiliation Course Date
2 Do you and your friends and family fit the models of news consumption described in the Pew articles? You may want to refer to some of the charts and graphs and cite some statistics from the articles to make your case. Individuals, particularly Americans, who use social media as their primary data and information source are more likely to believe untrue reports (Mitchell et al., 2020). Sincerely speaking, as shown in the Pew research, the majority of the media and information is consumed by my colleagues, family, and even myself on social media sites. However, I check to see if the material on the aforementioned sites is correct and trustworthy by researching it up online and using some trusted sources, and I discovered that, often, the social media content is not wholly true. As illustration, social networking sites like Facebook are restricting viewers' perspectives since they screen out the news and data that will appear in their feeds depending on their inclinations, which are often determined by user engagement (Matsa & Shearer, 2018). Can limiting your reading to what is posted by like-minded friends on social media make you narrow-minded? How? You may need to cite specific articles and passages to make your case. I firmly believe that reviewing only the content that one's acquaintances who share their opinions post on social networks may cause someone to become constricted because there is a greater chance that it will result in misleading data. Without checking to see if the data is correct or not, individuals are inclined to embrace what the other users' upload, particularly if the poster is a member of their household or close friend. What have you learned about the uses of Wikipedia and its credibility as a source? [If you viewed the optional video on the "Metal Umlaut," you can discuss that in your answer, too.]
3 These films, "Is Wikipedia a Credible Source?" and "The Metal Umlaut," demonstrate how Wikipedia can both be an accurate and inaccurate source. The site's credibility is in doubt since anyone with network connectivity may post content to it. But the videos make clear that Wikipedia is improving the function where a team of individuals watches over the data being entered into the internet in order to boost the accuracy of the material. In my opinion, Wikipedia, as any other source, must merely be our starting point for gathering knowledge; we must always check to see if the material we gather is accurate. Think about everyday access to an important newspaper like the Washington Post. Would you pay for it, or do you think all news should be free? Consider this: who is going to do the long-term research and investigative reporting that roots out corruption if all news is free and not done by professional journalists? [Hint: read the optional reading on investigative journalism for more about this topic.] I will probably not pay for a source of information if I had to subscribe to several trustworthy sites as I am certain that news and data must be free. Due to the possibility of each person being impacted by current news, everybody must be aware of them. Due to the large number of viewers that will access the website, they will need cash to compensate for informing people, but they can make income through various adverts.
Uploaded by AdmiralNeutronRaven23 on