Group items tagged

This article gives Oprah the name "queen of commercial endorsment." It talks about some of the different endorsements Oprah has made and how succesful they ended up. Not only does she do this with books but people also. I found this article intresting because it talked about how Oprah decided on her own what to talk about and which product, books, people, etc. to discuss. She gets no incentive or money from these writers or product makers. This could be a good explanation for why she is so succesful. People like to know that the recomendations they are getting are with good intentions not only becaus the person is getting paid. People really appreciate that in endorsments.

The author discuses how students researches have begun to diverge from the library for quite some time now and Google Scholar is just more evidence of this. He describes how the lack of student tendency to use the library has struck fear into both university faculty and librarians. He then discusses a number of different approaches that colleges and universities are taking. Some have a strict no Google Scholar, others do not dismiss or endorse it, posting agendas that point users towards the library, and some accept Google Scholar as good enough for student use. This article describes what researchers desire and the ability of Google Scholar to provide this information.

Kahle commentates on the opening of the $27 million Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky and its potential impact on the evolution/creationism debate. Despite the legal decisions of the past century, which have largely determined that creationism is religion and therefore has no place in the science classroom, Americans by and large uphold religious assertions over science, a tendency caused primarily by the continual endorsement of pseudoscience. The Kentucky Visitor's Bureau, a department supported by public tax dollars, lends credibility to the Creation Museum as a "walk through history . . . [that] will counter evolutionary natural history museums." Placing science and pseudoscience in the same realm, argues Kahle, is a mistake that may circumvent empirical science as a measure of truth.