Fiecare localitate din Romania inseamna, in primul rand, o mare comunitate, plina de viata, reprezentata de toti oamenii ce traiesc in ea, de vietile lor si legaturile dintre ei.
Spune-ti si tu povestea! Comunica in fiecare zi cu prietenii si vecinii din comuna Sanger - Mures, cu familia si chiar cu autoritatile locale ale comunei Sanger - Mures, pe noile pagini dedicate de Ziare.com comunelor din Romania.
Orice actiune a ta ajunge imediat pe Internet, iar toate gandurile tale, pozele pe care vrei sa le arati, evenimentele pe care vrei sa le anunti vor fi vazute imediat de cei direct interesati, cei care iti sunt mereu aproape.
Inregistreaza-te! E simplu. Iti faci un cont la fel ca pe orice retea sociala, cum e Facebook si Hi5, si vei putea sa incarci pe site tot ce vrei.
Poti sa adaugi texte, ca pe orice blog, poti sa incarci fotografii si inregistrari video, iti poti planifica evenimentele si poti da anunturi gratuite de mica publicitate.
Vorbeste cu prietenii si vecinii tai din comuna Sanger, spune-le sa-si faca si ei conturi. Cu cat va strangeti mai multi, cu atat mai repede vor aparea si alte optiuni noi si interesante pe site.
Daca ne aratati ca va plac noile pagini ale localitatilor din Romania, vom avea grija sa nu va lipseasca nimic din ceea ce va poate oferi Internetul.
I can remember when Wikipedia first stetard to gain popularity. It was looked at as an easy but not very credible source for information. After all, anybody can modify any page to say whatever he or she wants — no matter how true or untrue the modification is. However, I agree with Steve in his blog post that Wikipedia seems to be policed surprisingly well. And although it shouldn’t be used as a definitive source in an academic research project, it can lead to sources that come straight from the horse’s mouth.In chapter 5, I found the following passage on page 119 to encompass the essential difference between Wikipedia and other encyclopedias: “A Wikipedia article is a process, not a product, and as a result, it is never finished." While one could argue that other encyclopedias are also constantly evolving, an argument could be made that Wikipedia is actually the most accurate because it is updated in real time, thus avoiding obsolete (and consequently inaccurate) information. Encyclopedias are viewed as a historical record, whereas Wikipedia has become a historical record and an up-to-date source of information. I believe this is what Shirky means by “…it is never finished"; there is a sense with other forms of encyclopedias that is a finished, static document. I also noticed a parallel between the Wikipedia/encyclopedia discussion and the discussion about “traditional" news organizations and the blogosphere. Much like Wikipedia, it is more difficult to trust the blogosphere than “traditional" news sources; then again, both Wikipedia and the blogosphere give us more unfiltered and up-to-date information.After reading chapter 6, I stetard thinking about how technologies have a way of benefiting certain individuals today who would not have benefited if they were born 50 years prior. At the end of the chapter on page 159, Shirky writes “…social tools don’t create collective action — they merely remove the obstacles to it. Those obstacles have been so significant and pervasive, however, that as they are being removed, the world is becoming a different place." After reading this chapter, I developed a greater awareness that the “obstacles" noted in the quote above were so pervasive prior to the internet that “average" people struggled to be heard. Today, as Shirky assets, it takes “motivation, energy, and talent for action" (ala Julian Assange from WikiLeaks) to make a mark on the world. How likely would it be that we know the name Julian Assange had he been born 50 years ago?