Zachary Serhan

Construction Manager in Training, aspiring young construction professional.

Add to an article (Due: 2018-02-26)

Read the Gerald W. Smith and Milnor Roberts articles.

• Consider the following questions (but don't feel limited to these):
  • Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
  • Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
  • Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
  • Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
  • Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
  • Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
  • How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
  • How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
• Familiarize yourself with editing Wikipedia by adding a citation to either the Smith or Roberts articles. There are two ways the student may choose to do this and the student must choose one method:
  • Choose at least citation relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your recommended citation and edit material on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback with four tildes — ~~~~.  
  • Add 1-2 sentences to the same article, and cite that statement to a reliable source, as you learned in the online training and documented on the talk page. Document the edit with a reference to the talk page.

A

Engineering Education article and my analysis (Due: 2018-02-26)

The article I select to comment on is the Mexico section of engineering education.

• First, the language need to fix its verb tense issue. The article has summarized some history about Mexican Universities in the 19th century. The verb tense errors are flying everywhere.
• Second, some paragraphs are too short to be on its own. The second paragraph has only one sentence. The author can surely merge this paragraph with others.
• Third, there is lack of transition between paragraph.

_________________________

Discussion: Thinking about sources and plagiarism (Due: 2018-02-26)

Blog posts and press releases are considered poor sources of reliable information. Why? What are some reasons you might not want to use a company's website as the main source of information about that company? What is the difference between a copyright violation and plagiarism? What is public domain mean? ... What does fair use mean?... What are some good techniques to avoid close paraphrasing and plagiarism? Copying text from other sources?

===========

Answer questions - March 3rd What do you think of Wikipedia's definition of "neutrality"? NPV or "No original research" NOR What are the impacts and limits of Wikipedia as a source of information? Particularly for civil engineering data, information or knowledge given NPV or NOR. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and attempts to be objective and unbias, ofcourse these endeavors are hard to pursue. Informartioan and data is easy to be objective, by formulating conclusions and responses open ways to debate.

On Wikipedia, all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. What kinds of sources does this exclude? Can you think of any problems that might create? For this question, assume we are not engineers, If Wikipedia was written 100 years ago, how might its content (and contributors) be different? What about 100 years from now? Now we are answering this as aspiring Civil Engineers. We must also face the question of technology and the role it played in the development of civil infrastructure. If Wikipedia and civil engineering topics were being written 100 years ago, how might its content (and contributors) be different? How would Wellington have written about railroad economy? How would Campbell? John Haydon? Milnor Roberts? What about 100 years from now? What would CE knowledge look like 100 years from now? Would a wiki platform remain relevant?

Wikipedia disallows all resources that are written in a subjective matter including things like blog posts or personal accounts. As discussed in the ethics videos, CE and other engineers did not have a very favorable view 100 years ago in the United States. Perhaps if it was written then there would be less favorable analyzes. If these great CE had the chance to write about their own works, I think these accounts would be very interesting in comparison to what is written.

I know in the context of Milnor Roberts, he wrote and authorized a lot of different papers and kept a journal. I know the wikipedia page held this bibliography in high regard, so in a sense he did contribute to his own historical information.

Meads Essay adressing Social Media: "Abstract: This paper will look at the way of which persons and companies use social media, and how this faces ethical dilemmas. With enhanced communication from technological development, people are able to contact each other using social media as a medium. Social media is tracked, recorded and archived so if something is posted publically, it’ll stay that way and can be used against that entity. An FMI study shows that 67% of engineers or construction workers believe they work in an industry tainted by unethical procedures (1). The reality of the situation is, social media enables the construction industry to build upon the already unethical situations that were premade. So how can the ASCE and other professional agencies monitory, make rules, and execute them when it comes to social media?

Introduction: Engineers, contractors and other construction professionals are using social media to comment their opinions on projects, and send pictures of engineer drawings on as-builts. In the United States, freedom of speech allows these individuals to comment their opinions on these projects, like in the example of infrastructure. But the situation does arise, when does their opinion become slander to the professional affairs of other engineers? When does sending engineering drawings become solicitation of private client information?

These ASCE rules come into play when asking these questions, first from cannon 4:

a. Engineers shall avoid all known or potential conflicts of interest with their employers or clients and shall promptly inform their employers or clients of any business association, interests, or circumstances which could influence their judgment or the quality of their services.

f. Engineers shall not use confidential information coming to them in the course of their assignments as a means of making personal profit if such action is adverse to the interests of their clients, employers or the public

The ASCE helps engineers decipher what is ethically wrong, but this is limited to that of all construction professionals. Social media makes a lot of gray area, what engineers post and share is open to the public. Another rule is better than these two when addressing these concerns under Cannon: g. Engineers shall not maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, injure the professional reputation, prospects, practice or employment of another engineer or indiscriminately criticize another's work.

So in the hypothetical, but very common situation, where someone posts criticism of another project, should they be held accountable to the legal reprucssions? But what about the case in the Flordia bridge collapse, if someone on the construction project posted concerns about the infrastructure, design or material used, then this could be the first step to stopping such a crisis! So, perhaps the ASCE could think this individual broke the rule, but this could also be a situation that could prevent such a disaster. Open communication between engineers, in a professional non slanderous approach would lead to a more interconnected industry. In hopes where when engineers know something is being done that is unethical, they would express their discomfort, but in a public manner may not be the best approach, but in some cases one of the only ways to vent vital information to the public. A lot of times, owners or General contractors will cut corners, this is no shock in the industry, and to that affect the quality lessens, sometimes so much that it becomes a risk to the public. So if the public is the one at risk, shouldn’t they be informed through the form of social media?

Companies are developing social media pages, and it is a great way to express their perspective criticism and positives on the project they or other companies are working on. Open communication would allow for a balanced analysis on the project, holding people accountable for what they construction or design in a public forum. This would open the curtains on many shady or lucrative businesses that cut corners of projects. Sometimes engineers who are being pushed down on by the owner to reduce costs have no proper way around expressing their discomfort."