Computation of Grades (numbers, digits, figures: exams, reports, production, recitation)

aa.test

2007-78809

1

33

41

12

86

2.0

2007-45051

2

36

29

14

79

2.25

2006-09618

3

31

29

10

70

2.5

2006-47808

4

40

23

8

71

2.5

2007-15907

5

34

39

9

82

2.0

2007-29590

6

50.5

50

15

115.5

1.0

2007-03992

7

42

33.5

13

88.5

1.75

2007-43833

8

40

33.5

12

85.5

2.0

2007-78718

9

30

34

10

74

2.25

2007-55145

10

45

32

11

88

1.75

2007-25182

11

38

34

11

83

2.0

2007-78682

12

33

22.5

12

67.5

2.5

2003-65263

13

39

15.5

14

68.5

2.5

2005-41454

14

none

none

none

drp

drp

2007-39802

15

30

17

11

58

3.0

2007-55517

16

49

47

12

108

1.0

2007-24952

17

48

42.5

12

102.5

1.25

2007-07861

18

27

20

12

59

2.75

2007-63159

19

29.5

32

10

71.5

2.5

2007-56189

20

28

29

14

71

2.5

2007-14355

21

45

43

10

98

1.5

2007-78663

22

43

34

15

92

1.75

2006-08526

23

45

48

11

104

1.25

2003-01513

24

54

41

13

108

1.0

2007-09365

25

35

24

13

72

2.5

2007-78748

26

35

32

13

80

2.0

2007-03820

27

49

39

13

101

1.25

2003-38481

28

41

42

14

97

1.5

2007-59057

29

40

30

14

84

2.0

2007-29611

30

35

12

13

60

2.75

a.test


2007-67751

44 +

46 +

8 = 98= 1.5

2007-78870

33

32.5

10

75.5

2.25

2007-78688

37

42

15

94

1.5

2005-45358

17

19

15

57

3.0

2007-55904

39

32

8

79

2.25

2005-51852

54

48

12

114

1.0

2001-33430

50

23

8

81

2.0

2007-55039

42

44

6

92

1.75

2007-59458

41

45

12

98

1.5

2007-11187

51

41

8

100

1.5

2006-78570

29

26

15

70

2.5

2007-42770

37

23

8

68

2.5

2007-01498

42

31

12

85

2.0

2006-12318

27.5

35.5

7

70

2.5

2007-13527

47

36.5

14

97.5

1.5

2007-23834

41

52

15

108

1.0

2007-03774

41

45.5

13

99.5

1.5

2007-59371

30

22

8

60

2.75

2007-36856

47

none

8

Inc.

Inc.

2007-34692

36.5

44

12

92.5

1.75

2007-42383

51

35.5

10

96.5

1.5

2007-78045

49

49.5

10

108.5

1.0

2006-44150

42

40

13

95

1.5

2006-78336

41

31

11

83

2.0

2006-78687

48

39

12

99

1.5

2007-78477

41

34.5

8

83.5

2.0

2007-51594

37

43

12

92

1.75

2007-78649

53

45

12

110

1.0

2005-75260

42

37

8

87

1.75

2007-18752

30

47

15

92

1.75

2007-00918 36.5 43 21.76 15 116.26 1.5
2008-78663 47 50 17.94 14 128.94 1.25
2008-03806 33 51 19 13 116 1.5
2008-01710 55 43 20.06 15 133 1.0
2008-48875 36 49 20.29 13 118 1.5
2008-16197 42.5 48.5 18.82 15 124 1.25
2008-10288 45 51 19 13 128 1.25
2008-23521 34 42 18.18 10 104 1.75
2008-10748 52 41 19.76 14 126 1.25
2008-9473 39 38 18.24 12 107 1.75
2008-53276 45 49 15.82 15 124 1.25
2008-30049 37 31 19.69 15 102 2.0
2006-10556 46 29 20.38 15 110 1.75
2007-58475 27 51.5 18.39 9 105 1.75
2007-78663 50 21.5 20.82 15 108 1.75
2009-78589 00 00 00 0 00 5.0
2008-53279 36 37 19.76 10 102 2.0
2007-05461 43.5 37 20.76 15 116 1.5
2007-01185 37 45 20.24 7 109 1.75
2007-78649 42 47 19.59 12 120 1.5
XXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXX

2007-78727 42 37 20 22.4 10 131.4 1.75
2007-04696 58 45.5 15 23.85 12 154 1.25
2006-23760 43 51 18 18 14 144 1.5
2007-02043 48.5 51 22 20.45 10 151 1.25
1989-08827 46 29 23 19.5 9 126 1.75
2006-30259 43 44 20 20.95 14 141 1.5
2007-03992 53 45 18 23.65 12 151 1.25
2009-79008 49 43 11 20.35 10 133 1.75
2008-25096 55 45 18 18.75 14 150 1.25
2006-08822 40.5 34 10 22.15 10 116 2.0
2007-32722 47 30 13 21.7 7 118 2.0
2008-63271 48 49 13 19 10 139 1.5
2007-14355 48.5 36 10 22.7 12 129 1.75
2007-42269 47 37 24 19.85 14 141 1.5
2005-09999 39 39 10 21.45 12 121 2.0
2008-12745 54 51 12 20.9 12 149 1.25
2008-23148 39.5 30 17 18.9 10 115 2.0
2007-12573 45.5 48 13 21.65 10 138 1.5
2008-79652 47 31 8 19.9 13 118 2.0
2007-47548 45 47 24 22.3 9 147 1.25
XXXXXX

& that’s why i tell my students: “Anyone who uses Wikipedia in my class will get a 5.0 (failing grade).”

                My notes on the Yahoo News  article:Although Wikipedia removed the article, it stayed online long enough, twice, to be read and taken by viewers (even as Wikipedia has a disclaimer disavowing reliability of the articles, :  when you publish material in your name, it has your stamp of approval unless you say in your disclaimer: “the editors don’t know how to read; we did not read this material, we’re pre- pre-schoolers”…. if you have a disclaimer that reads that way, then you’re off the hook, we don’t hold minors and legally incapacitated people responsible.  In this Yahoo News article (by an AP writer) though, the student said “Wikipedia passed, journalism flunked”, in my book, both failed for publishing fabricated material or  false “information”, even as  the former removed  it but not catching it when it was first published and again published it then removed it. You can’t play that way when you’re publishing materials passed as facts or “information” to the public unless, as i said, you have a disclaimer that says “the editors are still in kindergarten, they did not read this material”

Alternative title of photo: “Learning Process”  (ipinilit!). and.gettingthere

 

From Yahoo News by Associated Press writer Shawn Pogatchnik at

Student fools world media

            “Irish student hoaxes world’s media with fake quote

          “Irish student hoaxes world’s media with florid but phony quote from dead French composer

         “by Shawn Pogatchnik, Associated Press Writer

        “On Monday May 11, 2009, 12:07 pm EDT

        “Buzz up! Print DUBLIN (AP) — When Dublin university student Shane Fitzgerald posted a poetic but phony quote on Wikipedia, he was testing how our globalized, increasingly Internet-dependent media was upholding accuracy and accountability in an age of instant news.

 

         “His report card: Wikipedia passed. Journalism flunked.

 

        “The sociology major’s obituary-friendly quote — which he added to the Wikipedia page of Maurice Jarre hours after the French composer’s death March 28 — flew straight on to dozens of U.S. blogs and newspaper Web sites in Britain, Australia and India. They used the fabricated material, Fitzgerald said, even though administrators at the free online encyclopedia twice caught the quote’s lack of attribution and removed it.

 

          “A full month went by and nobody noticed the editorial fraud. So Fitzgerald told several media outlets they’d swallowed his baloney whole.

 

“I was really shocked at the results from the experiment,” Fitzgerald, 22, said Monday in an interview a week after one newspaper at fault, The Guardian of Britain, became the first to admit its obituarist lifted material straight from Wikipedia.

 

“ “I am 100 percent convinced that if I hadn’t come forward, that quote would have gone down in history as something Maurice Jarre said, instead of something I made up,” he said. “It would have become another example where, once anything is printed enough times in the media without challenge, it becomes fact.”

 

“So far, The Guardian is the only publication to make a public mea culpa, while others have eliminated or amended their online obituaries without any reference to the original version — or in a few cases, still are citing Fitzgerald’s florid prose weeks after he pointed out its true origin.

 

“ “One could say my life itself has been one long soundtrack,” Fitzgerald’s fake Jarre quote read. “Music was my life, music brought me to life, and music is how I will be remembered long after I leave this life. When I die there will be a final waltz playing in my head that only I can hear.”

 

“Fitzgerald said one of his University College Dublin classes was exploring how quickly information was transmitted around the globe. His private concern was that, under pressure to produce news instantly, media outlets were increasingly relying on Internet sources — none more ubiquitous than the publicly edited Wikipedia.

 

“When he saw British 24-hour news channels reporting the death of the triple Oscar-winning composer, Fitzgerald sensed what he called “a golden opportunity” for an experiment on media use of Wikipedia.

 

“He said it took him less than 15 minutes to fabricate and place a quote calculated to appeal to obituary writers without distorting Jarre’s actual life experiences. He noted that the Wikipedia listing on Jarre did not have any other strong quotes.

 

“If anything, Fitzgerald said, he expected newspapers to avoid his quote because it had no link to a source — and even might trigger alarms as “too good to be true.” But many blogs and several newspapers used the quotes at the start or finish of their obituaries.

 

“He said the Guardian was the only publication to respond to him in detail and with remorse at its own editorial failing. Others, he said, treated him as a vandal who was solely to blame for their cut-and-paste content.

 

“ “The moral of this story is not that journalists should avoid Wikipedia, but that they shouldn’t use information they find there if it can’t be traced back to a reliable primary source,” said the readers’ editor at the Guardian, Siobhain Butterworth, in the May 4 column that revealed Fitzgerald as the quote author.

 

“It’s worrying that the misinformation only came to light because the perpetrator of the deception emailed publishers to let them know what he’d done, and it’s regrettable that he took nearly a month to do so,” she wrote.

 

“ Fitzgerald said he had waited in part to test whether news organizations or the public would smoke out the quote’s lack of provenance. He said he was troubled that none did.

 

“And he warned that a truly malicious hoaxer could have evaded Wikipedia’s own informal policing by getting a newspaper to pick up a false piece of information — as happened when his quote made its first of three appearances — and then use those newspaper reports as a credible footnote for the bogus quote.

 

“ “I didn’t want to be devious,” he said. “I just wanted to show how the 24-hour, minute-by-minute media were now taking material straight from Wikipedia because of the deadline pressure they’re under.”

 

“Guardian article on controversy, http://tinyurl.com/djqd8w

 

“Soundtrack Geek blog on Jarre, http://tinyurl.com/d527zh

 

“Wikipedia site criticizing itself, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism–of–Wikipedia