User:Akruljev/sandbox

The Instructional Technology Resource Centre (ITRC) is a multimedia support facility located in the Support Services Building at the University of Western Ontario in London, Ontario, Canada. The ITRC provides advice and assistance to faculty and staff who are interested in the concept of eLearning and in integrating technology into their courses. All of the work that the ITRC supports and produces is done for educational purposes. Instructors may contact the ITRC through email or phone, or they may drop-in and visit in person.

About

The ITRC mainly works to provide support for OWL, Western's online learning management system. This system, which is powered by Sakai, houses Western's official undergraduate and graduate courses, as well as independent projects worksites. The ITRC also provides support for the Blackboard Collaborate plug-in used in OWL. In addition to OWL related help, the ITRC also works on creating interactive learning materials, which are used in classes at Western. Sometimes the ITRC's innovative work is showcased at conferences and is featured in publications such as Western News.

Student Consultants

The ITRC student consultants are all full-time undergraduate students attending the University of Western Ontario. They work collaboratively as part of a team of support specialists responsible for providing support to instructors. They work full-time in the summer and part-time during the school year. All of the projects that the students work on during their time at the ITRC can be used and showcased in their personal online portfolios.

Projects

The ITRC collaborates with instructors to create interactive, technology-based instructional materials, enhancing the overall learning experience. Although the ITRC accepts proposals and works on projects year-round, the majority of project requests are received and completed throughout the summer months from May-August. These projects usually require the use of vector-based images, animation, sound, video, and programming. The ITRC does not charge instructors for the services it provides for academic purposes. As such, all of the projects must have education learning objectives. As soon as a project is accepted by the ITRC supervisors, an ITRC consultant is assigned as the project lead.The project lead is in charge of providing technical expertise, assisting his/her colleagues, meeting deadlines, and arranging dates for future meetings.

Current Hardware and Software

The ITRC is up to date with the latest technologies. Instructors may borrow the equipment or use it during drop-in hours. The following is a list of all the hardware and software at the ITRC.

Hardware

Photography and Video

• Digital SLR Camera
• HD Digital Video Cameras
• Green Screen

Audio Recording

• Microphones
• Multitrack Mixer

Scanners

• Flatbed scanner
• 35mm slide scanner

Workstations

• Apple iMacs (dual boot Windows and OS X)
• Apple Mac Pro Workstations

Software

Video Production

• AfterEffects
• ScreenFlow
• CamStudio
• Final Cut Studio

Audio Production

• Audacity
• Pro Tools
• Soundtrack Pro
• Soundbooth

Graphics and Web Development

• Adobe Captivate
• Adobe Creative Suite
• Blender
• Articulate Storyline 1 & 2

See also

• The University of Western Ontario
• Educational technology
• Online learning
• E-learning (theory)

References

1. The Instructional Technology Resource Centre Retrieved March 6, 2016.
2. Information Technology Services Retrieved April 5, 2016.
3. OWL Retrieved April 6, 2016.
4. Western News. Retrieved April 6, 2016.
5. Western News Retrieved April 6, 2016.
6. In Touch Newsletter Retrieved APril 6, 2016.

External Links

• The Instructional Technology Resource Centre—Official website
• OWL—Western University's online learning management system
• Blackboard Collaborate—Web conferencing platform
• Sample projects can be viewed on Western's YouTube account.

Wikipedia Evaluation

Upon reviewing Wikipedia’s page titled Media conglomerate, it becomes apparent that the article does not meet the required criteria to be considered a high-quality article. Instead, it is filled with obvious signs of a poorly written article. The warning banner, displayed at the top of the page, reveals that the article has multiple issues.

Firstly, and, in my opinion, most importantly, the banner indicates that the page is lacking reliable references. There are only three sources listed under the “References” section, demonstrating that the article is poorly referenced and was most likely written without complete information on the subject. This can easily deter readers away from the page, as they might not trust the credibility of the content presented throughout the article. Wikipedia’s reliability is often questioned, especially by scholars in the academic sphere, and for this reason it is imperative to incorporate an exhaustive list of references for all articles in order to improve Wikipedia’s overall standing as a reliable source of information.

Furthermore, the banner implies that the page requires copyediting for “grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling.” While small grammatical and spelling errors might not initially seem like a big deal, they can gradually disrupt the flow of reading, which can be extremely frustrating for readers. It can also further tarnish the credibility of the article, which, as mentioned above, reflects poorly on Wikipedia as a whole. The page’s table of contents, presented directly beneath the short lead section, is inadequately constructed and navigates readers to sections that are in need of greater coverage. All seven sections are constructed of only a few sentences – one section is covered in only one sentence. It is evident that sections need to be expanded on in much greater detail. Perhaps a history section on the topic or an explanation for how the term was coined should be added to the article.

In addition to the copyediting demands, the article also fails to provide readers with a neutral representation of a worldwide outlook on the topic. Instead, its scope focuses merely on the United States, suggesting that the page is either biased or not carefully and comprehensively examined. Indeed, much more collaborative work needs to be done to fix this issue.

Moreover, the “Talk” page is also indicative of a poor quality article. One—evidently upset—contributor titled his comment with the following caption: “The idiots who keep on reverting News Corp/21st Century Fox back to News Corporation…” Such personal attacks and hostile language are unnecessary and unwelcome on Wikipedia. They also trump one of Wikipedia’s Five Pillars, which clearly states that, “Wikipedians should interact in a respectful and civil manner.” As such, disagreements between editors should be handled in a polite, professional manner as outlined within the Wikipedia training, which is available – and highly recommended—for all contributors to complete.

Taking into consideration everything mentioned above, it is appropriate to conclude that this Wikipedia page is in need of many significant improvements before it can properly be categorized as a high-quality article.