ITEC1201Spr08

From GGCWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

ITEC1201 Section 1, Spring 2008

Assignment 6

Wikipedia is a free-content encyclopedia, written collaboratively by people from all around the world. The site is a wiki, which means that anyone with access to an Internet-connected computer can edit entries simply by clicking on the edit this page link. Wikipedia is a project of the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation. Wikipedia, January 2006

Must Read/Listen

Discuss Following Questions

  • Compare Wikipedia and Encyclopedia. How are they different? Which is more accurate and reliable?
    • Discussion goes here
    • Wikipedia is edited by everyone, which gives it the chance to be inaccurate but an Encyclopedia is known information written for scholarly use, wikipedia is more frequently right on average than an encyclopedia, but because it can be edited by everyone and has the potiential to be wrong, it is not allowed to be cited on papers and what not. - Wilson Green
    • Wikipedia can be edited by anyone therefor it is not 100& accurate while an Encyclopedia is formed by scholars who compiled information so it tends to be more accurate. Encyclopedia is also usually outdated since it cant be updated but yearly if you are talking about a print one. -Chris Hull
    • Wikipedia is written and compiled by anyone who comes across the page, whereas a classic encyclopedia is complied by a professional organization which likely pays for access to official information. Wikipedia, however, is more accurate and reliable because of the sheer number of people with the ability to contribute. - Josh Timmer
    • One of the main differences between a Wikipedia and an encyclopedia is the type of people who are allowed to participate the compiling process. While only professions are allowed to compile encyclopedias, everyone can input things into Wikipedia. Although many Wikipedian are knowledgeable and dedicate themselves to researching, some just input random information without further examining its accuracy. So I have to disagree that Wikipedia is more reliable than encyclopedia. - Teresa Lee
    • Wikipedia and Encyclopedia are different in terms of content and credibility. Encyclopedia is written, documented and published by world known researchers; whereas wikipedia, even though it can be reliable, is an open source. Anyone can put their opinions in without any source nor credibility. Encyclopedia is by far still more reliable and accurate. -Mike Pierre-Louis
    • The main difference between wikipedia and an Encyclopedia is that the content of an encyclopedia is governed by a publisher where as wikipedia is governed by it's users. Information on wikipedia is more likely to contain errors or flat out lies, but it is also more likely to be up to date as apposed to an encyclopedia which requires years of editing before it is published. That being said, an encyclopedia is better for referencing as a source of information for a paper, but wikipedia may be better for finding up to date info that may require some digging into to get the facts. -Kyle Veitch
    • Difference between WIkipeida and Encyclopedia is that the people who input data. In Encyclopedia, certified researchers input data, whereas on Wikipeida, anyone is allowed to make inputs. There are flaws in both of the sources. Encyclopedia updates rarely, so most of the information is old and we can't say if it is reliable if the encyclopedia only has ancient information. whereas, Wikipedia has recent data, so it is reliable, but the accuracy is still a question. Encyclopedia is more accurate, but less reliable than Wikipedia.-Zohaib Ali Mohammad.
    • Wikipedia can be a reliable source if you check the credibility of who posted it. The only problem is that you can think they are a reliable source and their content can be completely wrong. An encyclopedia is fact based information. You can find information easier on the wikipedia than in an encyclopedia which may be the only positive to it. -Robert Forscht
  • Should anonymous contribution be allowed on Wikipedia? Why or why not?
    • Discussion goes here
    • I think there should be some type of requirement to post on wikipedia, because if there were none then people could purposefully sabotage it without repurcussions. - Wilson Green
    • I agree with everyone, If there was anonymous posters then the information would lose all credibility - Chris Hull
    • No. There must be accountability for additions or modifications to pages to discourage vandalism or the intentional posting of false information. - Josh Timmer
    • I agree with Josh that anonymous contribution should not be allowed. When other users have find someone with harmful behavior, it will be easy for them to report this problem. - Teresa Lee
    • I also agree with you guys. There should be some kind of filtration process for who should be allowed to post input and/or research results.- Mike Pierre-Louis
    • I agree as well, anonymous postings are less likely to be from credible sources and more likely to be vandalism. -Kyle Veitch
    • I disagree with everyone here, I think annymous should be allow to contribute. If the wikipedians don't contribute, most of the information would not be there. For Example, Sometimes we are in search of actor or someone special that you saw is famous, but not too famous. You will not find D-list celebs in Encyclopedia, infact it is rare for even celeb to be in a Encyclopedia, or about your favorite shows. Since most people know that anyone can contribute to wiki, so I think people should not use this a main source.--Zohaib Ali Mohammad
    • I am kind of for and against anonymous postings. I believe if it is a questionable subject the person is posting about they should be allowed to remain anonymous, but if it is an important subject that people rely on, they should list their name. -Robert Forscht
  • Wikipedians (those who contribute more than 100 times each month) are volunteers. There were more than 3,000 very active Wikipedians and around 25,000 active Wikipedians in 2006 (Statistics). What could motivate you to contribute to Wikipedia?
    • Discussion goes here
    • If people are interested in a topic then they would want to post on it, or if they are a professional in one area and notice that something is completely wrong then they might feel the need to fix it. - Wilson Green
    • If there was a subject I was very interested in and it had no article I would probably be motivated to make an article on wikipedia. -Chris Hull
    • Having a great deal of knowledge on subjects where there is a need for information would lead me to want to contribute my knowledge so that people will know the truth. - Josh Timmer
    • I agree that being equipped with enough knowledge in a specific subject would motivate me to contribute. Also, if I see something untrue in Wikipedia, I will have the motivation to change it and contribute what I know. - Teresa Lee
    • Same here, if I were to have an expertise in a certain area then I would contribute. - Mike Pierre-Louis
    • I agree people who are speciaized in an area of research are usually interested in making sure other people are informed correctly about their area of research. -Kyle Veitch
    • Personally I have yet to contriubute because of lack of interest. But for others who have contribute, I think the power of knowing, waste of time, and how you feel about the subject can entice a person to contribute. -Zohaib Mohammad
    • There would have to be a subject I would be willing to post about. Other than that I don't feel like it is my responsibility to post information on a subject where there are more knowledgeable people. -Robert Forscht
  • Is an entry in Wikipedia an example of transactional information or analytical information? Explain your answer.
    • Discussion goes here
    • Analytical information, because it is everyones knowledge of various sources, and that knowledge might vary, summarizing any broad topic. - Wilson green
    • I also agree with Teresa with the case that it is analytical information since it take alot of information and provides an overview of it. - Chris Hull
    • I think that Wikipedia is an example of analytical information. Like one of the articles describes Wikipedia as a "tertiary source," Wikipedians collect information - which can be either tangible, such as books, or intangible, such as one's knowledge - and input what they have concluded based on these sources. They don't entered individual sources that they have found; instead, they analyze which sources are relevant to the subject and summarize them. - Teresa Lee
    • I couldn't agree more with Teresa. She said it very precisely; It is true that Wikipedia is an example of analytical information. Wikipedians collect any valid information then summarizes them.- Mike Pierre-Louis
    • I agree as well, wikipedians gather information and present it in a manner that is understandable by the average viewer as well as the informed viewer. Therefore, it is analytical information.
    • well it is very obvious to me by now that it is analytical information. Analytical information's purpose to support the performanceof managerial analysis task. So the information is being manage to this site from many other sources. --ZOhaib MOhammad
    • I will also have to agree with everyone. It is analytical because it is a collection of information from multiple sources and summarized to give you the whole picture. -Robert Forscht
  • Why is database technology important to Wikipedia?
    • Discussion goes here
    • It is important because it can hold vast amounts of data and information and also can be used to analyze all of that information. Also it would help link relevant topics to each other. - Wilson Green
    • There needs to be a way to search wikipedia so a database is important for this so people can find information - Chris Hull
    • When people do searchs on Wikipedia, they are basically trying to find information which others have entered into this big Wikipedia database. In order for its users to access relevant information in a small amount of time, Wikipedia must have a database technology which can support its users in this task.Because more and more people contribute to as well as access Wikipedia, its database technology must be able to deal with the huge amount of data that has been put in and the growing number of end users. - Teresa Lee
    • Database technology is important to Wikipedia, because of copious of information that the site has to deal with. By using data technology, the site can be run smoothly and in a well fashion way. -Zohaib Mohammad
    • Very true, since Wikipedia was launched, there are huge amount of data and accounts being created day in and day out. They must have a reliable database technology to to allow the constant flow of information exchanges.- Mike Pierre-Louis
    • agreed, Wikipedia relies on the exchange and linking of information. it would be useless without a good reliable database. -Kyle Veitch
    • Database is important to wikipedia because of the vast amount of information being exchanged between user and site. -Robert Forscht
  • How can Wikipedia use data warehouse to improve their operations?
    • Discussion goes here
    • Using a data warehouse can help orgaize their information, or to help analyze the information that is most searched for and display results that are similar to what you searched for. - Wilson Green

Using the data warehouse can help the company to become more organized since it is dealing with so many articles about different subjects. If people browse for a certain subject, they would find make article relevant to each other. Also data warehouse can be used to have information about the wikipedians. --ZOhaib MOhammad

    • I agree with everyone, Users need to be able to relialibly find information so a data warehouse would be good - Chris Hull
    • I think that using data warehouse can help users quickly find a large amount of relevant information that they need. For example, if a user types the keyword "US history," he may find information he wants under the entry titled "US history,""United States," etc. - Teresa Lee
    • True, but also might be dealing with certain information that certain users want to retain to themselves. They could also use data warehouse in terms of user filtration where certain users are not allowed to post nor contribute on a certain topic.- Mike Pierre-Louis
    • I think data warehousing can be useful in making information more accessible to the viewer. Most of the people who visit wikipedia are not contributors and data warehousing will make their searches more relevant. -Kyle Veitch
    • A data warehouse would improve the operations because the information would be more organized. It would also help the search results to be more relevant to the users needs. -Robert Forscht
  • How can an organization use Wikipedia to gain BI?
    • Discussion goes here
    • Since everyone can edit wikipedia, they would gain information about everyone, and could use that information to make their website better or to change certain aspects of it. - Wilson Green
    • Business can get access to information about their competitors and what the general public think about their competition and the business itself. Business can also make their own page, and input information to put the business in positive light. Obviously, Teresa makes a good point about the linking to sources, and where the information can be found.--Zohaib Mohammad
    • I think there are better sources out there to gain BI but if wiki was a organizations only resource then they would just have to search for what they need. However the information might not be accurate. - Chris Hull
    • Although most organizations may not consider information on Wikipedia as reliable, they can still gain BI in some different ways. First, in most Wikipedia entries, users will cite other reliable sources, which can be good sources of BI. Second, because it is hard for users to avoid being bias, organizations can collect the opinions of the general public or the trend in certain industry based on things such as users' word choices or the focus of their research. - Teresa Lee
    • Well, I believe an organization can use Wikipedia as a problem solving tool to gain BI. Since Wikipedia is an open source and general public opinions are generated everyday, then an organizsation can use other people's knowledge to gain BI. It was wonderfully said in the pre-recorded show "How mass collaboration can change everything", the gentleman said that his neighbor who had a gold business multiplied his profits just by using the general puclic's way of research.- Mike Pierre-Louis
    • I think any resource of information can be used to gain BI, but wikipedia specifically allows for more by being a conduit of internet and social trends. Organizations can gain BI by watching these trends and testing the waters of the public. -Kyle Veitch
    • An organization can use wiki to gain BI because they can look up information on competitors, and also find who is looking for products similar to theirs. -Robert Forscht

Assignment 7

Dell Inc. (NASDAQ: DELL SEHK: 4331), an American technology company based in Round Rock, Texas, develops, manufactures, sells, and supports personal computers, servers, data storage devices, network switches, personal digital assistants (PDAs), software, televisions, computer peripherals, and other technology-related products. (Source: Wikipedia)

Readings

Discuss Following Questions

  • What is Dell's Direct Model?
    • Answer goes here
    • Dell sells the products directly to the customers and customizes the products based on the customer's needs. --Zohaib Mohammad 16:26, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
    • Dell's Direct Model is selling products directly to the customers without going through the retailers, which gives Dell more control over the needs of its customers. --Chia-chi Lee 15:17, 4 April 2008 (EDT)
    • I agree with everyone. Dell sells its products to customers which customize what they want - Chris Hull
    • I also agree with everyone's response. Dell avoids the MAD cost (Marketing, Advertising, Distribution) by supplying directly to their customers.- Mike Pierre-Louis
    • Agreed, Also because Dell's products are built on demand, they avoid storage cost and returned computers. --Kyle Veitch 13:36, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
    • Rather than storing PCs in a warehouse, Dells computers are built to order lowering their own costs. --[User:Kbowers|Kevin Bowers]]
  • What are the advantages of Dell's Direct Model?
    • There are plenty of advantages of Dell's Direct Model, Dell gets to know the customer's needs, and has a direct relationship with the customers. Dell sells customize products, which avoids surplus of products and makes the company more efficient. Another advantage Dell gets by directly dealing with the customer is that it is able to get the customers requirements regarding software to be loaded. Dell also reduces the cost of intermediaries that could add up to the total cost for the customers. Moreover, by directly dealing with the customer Dell gets a clearer indication of market trends. By knowing the future trends, it helps Dell plan for the future.--Zohaib Mohammad 16:30, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
    • I agree with this business model. Dell builds it products just to how the customer states which is good. Chris Hull
    • Zohaib pretty much points out all the advantages of Dell's Direct Model. I want to add that because the Direct Model is build-to-order, Dell will not worry about the aging of its products, and it is easy for Dell to start selling new products because it does not need to get rid of the old ones. --Chia-chi Lee 15:17, 4 April 2008 (EDT)
    • Everyone has it right on point. Dell saves and makes more money with their Direct Model. - Mike Pierre-Louis
    • Increased profit, decreased costs, increased customer satisfaction, increased power overall for them --Kyle Veitch 13:49, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
    • I agree with everyone else, Dell has increased profit, customer satisfaction, etc. -- Kevin Bowers
  • So what is Dell? A one-off phenomenon, lucky enough to exploit a combination of factors that turn out to be unique to the PC industry? Or a truly ascendant business model so disruptive that it can be adopted only through wrenching change and not the piecemeal attempts tried by others so far? Discuss your answer based on Michael Scharge's article The Dell Curve
    • Answer goes here
    • Dell is a business which is very interested in it consumers so my they let them suxtomize what they want in their laptop. - Chris Hull
    • I think Dell's Direct Model is a truly ascendant business model. This model has a major advantage: it focuses mainly on the needs of the customers. Dell provides products and predicts future trend based on this. Although Dell has been criticized as lack of innovation because its products are what the customers want instead of the development of its own, I think the Direct Model is innovative in a special way. And Michael Scharge has provided some examples of the failure of other companies to adopt this model, so the success of Dell should not be a lucky coincidence.--Chia-chi Lee 15:43, 4 April 2008 (EDT)
    • I agree with Teresa here on Dell being a truly ascendant business model. Direct model is an ancient business concept, which consist of stores that makes what the customer needs. That is how small business work until the business expands, and retailors are introduced into the company to target more consumers. Dell just used a small store concept and applied it to their company, and pulled it off very well. There are companies who tried to pull the concept off, but they failed. Companies such as Cisco or Sun, depend too much on their reseller and consultant networks to go fully direct. In PCs, Gateway could not make the model work well enough to avoid the need for retail stores that pulled in customers at the cost of creating dreaded inventory. Compaq and HP could not sacrafice their retail channels for direct model business. --Zohaib Mohammad 08:52, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
    • I also agree with Teresa, Dell's Direct Model is a truely ascendant business model. I personally think that Dell's Model is a great business concept which embraces the ease of use and the simplicity of customizing a product from the customer perspective and manage to save and make tremendous profit.- Mike Pierre-Louis
    • I agree dells model is ascendant, however outher companies need to realize that they cannot make a bit for bit copy of dell model, but rather take the overall spirit of it and apply it to their business in a way that works for them. If done correctly Dell's business model has the potential to make a business a giant in their field. --Kyle Veitch 13:49, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
    • Agreed. Dells model is ascendant. --Kevin Bowers
  • Do you think Dell needs to change their business model? Explain why?
    • I think that dell is doing great. Other company's should think about doing something like Dell. - Chris Hull
    • I do not think Dell needs to change their business model, I do think it is unfair for the other companies since they have to work more as far as ordering, and keeping up with inventories, and wasting of materials that are outdated and yet less profits are being made compare to Dell. Dell does not need to change, because it is concept that they have established for their business and they have rights to run their company however they want. Teresa predicts this concept to be popular in future. If this concept becomes popular, it will create a problem for consumers because the customer will not have a example of what they want. Lets say computers, if all the company adjust to this concept, then consumers who are computer illiterate will have harder time customizing their products. Dell does have competitive advantage, but I do not think every company should follow this concept for the customer's sake. --Zohaib Mohammad 19:33, 4 April 2008 (EDT)
    • I also think that Dell does not need to change its business model. It is good to have different types of marketing strategies in computer industry, and I think that this type of model may become more and more popular in the future.--Chia-chi Lee 15:43, 4 April 2008 (EDT)
    • I personally think that Dell doesn't need to change their Model. It has uncounted advantages and has put the company has the World number #1 personal computer retailer. Even though, they don't have any stores and outlets, they surpass the success of known retail stores- Mike Pierre-Louis
    • I think Dell does need to change their business model a bit to compete with the current market. Dell's profits have been in steady decline for years now. Mostly because their model does not appeal to some of the more specialized markets. While their computers are offered at a great price and with plenty of options they are still all made from parts provided by the lowest bidder. Even their best machines are inferior in cost and performance to what the average computer literate customer could build themselves for half the price. I think that if dell wants to survive the current trend in computers they will have to take a closer look at the niche markets and try to make a bid for their support. --Kyle Veitch 13:49, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
    • I think their model is fine, but it may need to be changed in the future to flow with the rest of the market. --Kevin Bowers

--Sonal S. Dekhane 09:32, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

Go Back

Personal tools