Additional articles on camera phones

Malaysia cracks down on camera phones
- Makes one wonder how potent these phones really are such that enforcement has to be done at a national level...

Courthose cell phone camera ban on hold
- Should camera phones be allowed in courthouses?

Teenagers: Camera phones

* indicates text for clarification, not included in word count

Original article:
Camera phones, fun no more warn police

This article basically raises an issue widely prevalent in society: that giving its increasing potential for menace, how should the use of the camera phone be regulated? In this personal response to the article I will choose to focus on camera phones in an education context, seeing how Singapore has recently been plagued with scandals of camera phone misuse in schools.

Comments:
My personal stand is that the use of camera phones does more harm than good to teenagers.

Firstly, camera phones distract teenagers who are still schooling from their academic lessons. The possession of such a 'prized weapon', through which compromising images of teachers can be captured and later circulated in jest, makes these students want to try it. Hence they spend valuable lesson time staking out an opportunity to capture that very shot - without the teacher knowing of course. Hence, these students are not concentrating entirely during lessons, and that has negative repercussions by causing them to lag behind in their school work.

Also, what comes into play with camera phones also involves the teenager's ethics. Camera phones exert a strong and negative influence over the teenager. These phones, in their very essence - and for that same reason why they are called camera phones, tempt teenagers in trying to take a photo of another person. Be it a fellow student, a senior or even a stranger. In fact, better if it is an unknown person - for there is that heightened element of suspense; a greater need to avoid detection for being caught yields an unknown consequence reliant on the stranger's personality. The teenager may also challenge himself to take a photo of an object, going by the "the harder the target to snare, the greater the satisfaction" rule. And what subsequently happens, we see is an infringement of privacy.

Camera phones also have a role to play in a pathway of mass, rapid exposure and this may as a result mislead teenagers on the proper way to achieve recognition. Teenagers are free to capture images or videos on their phones and consequently, may choose to upload them to the Internet where they can be viewed and commented on by many. Teens may hanker after this 'publicity', eager to be regarded as the one who posted such a debatable clip and for this, resort to snapping indecent photos so as to elicit such a response from the online community; in the process crossing the line and facing prosecution.

*An example of the potency of these camera phones and how they aid in the widespread dissemination of information was demonstrated earlier this year, when a clip featuring obscene acts between a couple was posted onto the Net. Within days the whole of Singapore knew of the incident.

*As can be seen, camera phones actually impinge upon teenagers negatively. They do more harm than good by distracting students from their fundamental obligation of studying hard, and also; in an affective context shape students amorally, alongside with causing them to have a twisted view of what recognition really is.

I must admit, however, that the assumption I have been operating under thus far is that the teenagers are not mature enough to discern between right and wrong and hence would behave inappropriately. And that, also, I have been generalizing - that just because a select minority of teenagers are unethical, all teenagers are. No doubt this hasty generalization is fallacious. Although camera phones actually serve as an avenue for wrongdoing; they catalyze the rate of mistake-making - they also have their due advantages:

In this context, they allow schooling teenagers to take pictures on field trips without having to bring along bulky cameras. And out of context, they signify a society increasingly preoccupied with technology; we should be proud of this indication of mankind progressing.

I am not saying that camera phones should be banned entirely so our youths will develop an ideal morality; instead I am putting forth implementing a check and balance (perhaps in the form of parents and teachers) to counter the possible threat these phones may play, whilst retaining their merits.

Additional articles on Wikipedia

Some other useful sites on this issue:

Study finds Wikipedia nearly as accurate as Brittanica

Can Wikipedia conquer expertise?

Who writes Wikipedia?

Wikipedia: bane or boon?

Original article:
Australian government caught editing Wikipedia

This article describes how the Australian government has been caught editing articles; basically removing unfavourable edits. It then spurs one to think, how reliable Wikipedia really is, with this free-and-easy system of editing which abusers capitalize on to further their own agendas.

Comments:
Personally, I think that Wikipedia is more of a bane than a boon to society - like what this article demonstrates.

No doubt, it is true that Wikipedia may be targeted by abusers for their own motives. Be it companies discrediting their competitors, lobbyists posting favourable remarks about senators or so (in this case). There is also the occasional case of abusers randomly blanking pages, uploading obscene images or even commenting rudely. And this is precisely one of Wikipedia's flaws - that such a free-for-all platform lends itself readily to a proliferation of vices. True, there are checks and balances such as editors in place - but all it takes for a child to become mentally damaged is just an inappropriate picture he sees before editors can revert, what with the advent of technology these days. And in this light Wikipedia misplaces the trust that parents place in it; that their children would be safe browsing its pages.

Yet I must not be overly critical about the system on this too, for it is the abusers doing the nasty things. But one other feature of Wikipedia that irks me is its IP issue. I have never vandalized a webpage, but whenever I attempt to contribute to Wikipedia, it politely informs me that I have been barred for vandalization. I protest my innocence, and what I get is a sign-up-for-a-free-account! screen so I can now be free of all this dynamic IP squabble. Yet, I feel that this solution of IP blocking on the system's part hampers the convenience of those who have valuable inputs to make; this information deterrence may be costly.

You may then argue that Wikipedia does have its merits too, of creating an online space for knowledge-pursuers. But I challenge, how much of this knowledge is actually reliable? Before you start on the 'citations' part, I question: how much of these citations are really real and also what are their ease of verification? To prove my point I added a new genus of pigs to the Wikipedia site on pigs; it was still there after a week of so. Hence, the checks and balances that Wikipedia implements actually aid in generating a false sense of security which consequently, entices people to head for the website in order to satiate their desire for information. Wikipedia is viewed as a source of reliable information, but the question is, to what extent is it really reliable?

I concede that I may have been biased, for I am not entirely sure of the efficacy of the checks and balances system Wikipedia has in place to combat abusers; instead I am being an armchair critic here. The list of fervent Wikipedians here , together with the unlisted ones, may prove to be effective in deterring abusers, but still not 100% effective - in my opinion. Until 0% error rate can be accomplished, which ironically, is not possible until there is some ubiquitous revitalization of virtues in Man, I would recommend taking Wikipedia with a pinch of salt.

To end off, I have a quote by Einstein:

"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods."