To summarize by computer, or to summarize by human...that is the question.
It is a new trend to use computers to summarize articles. It may sounds good at first sight since it provides with the users much more time and energy. But It is an important question that whether is it ethical or not. Also, is it really summarizing and does it give the same meaning that author aim to ? For a scientific point of view, can we accept these softwares as summarizing tools? I think we can not. Because, these softwares does not summarize articles; they are just finding the common words and giving the sentences including these common words mostly. What if does the writer give the main idea in a sentence only once in which there is not any common word in it? For this case the answer is clear; the main idea could not be reached by using any software. So, what could be done for both a good and a rapid study? Instead of using summarizing tools, reading both abstract and conclusion parts pricisely and also searching for the keywords to reach to the information that we were looking for, could be much more beneficial. This methods does not only save your time, but also forms a more precise and regular study.
Very good point about the accuracy and relevance of computer-generated summaries. My initial reaction was the same as yours, and to some degree still is. However, the more I use tools like SMMRY and TOPICMARKS, the more I see that they do have a role to play in this world where we are being exposed to vast amounts of information. It is now impossible for me to even attempt to skim and scan all the pages I need to read just in an attempt to keep up with the developments in my field of teaching English. With artificial intelligence, the tools that a computer provides can be a useful aid to managing this deluge of data. TOPICMARKS is a good case in point, where it is suggesting to me links between articles I read that I might not have noticed before. But are they a substitute for the old-fashioned way of reading? In fact, I think that the very fabric of how and what we read is changing before our eyes (just as it did when Gutenberg invented the printing press), and with this change some of the skills you and I have grown up with may need to be re-evaluated. The next decade will probably see the 'death' of the printed book in an educational context, for sure. And with technology like the Kindle and iPad, it is likely that the days of newspapers, magazines, paperbacks, etc., may also be numbered. We are living in interesting times...
YanıtlaSilThank you for your interest. Maybe not for summarizing but for data management computer are excellent tools. For sure, you are much and much more experienced compared to each of us. I think these predictions are not very far since people have already started to download and read the books by ipads.
YanıtlaSilI want to ask you a question about resources. Let's suppose I am trying to prove an idea. There are many resources that supporting my view and also, there are many which does not support. Let's assume their precentages as %50 opponent and %50 component and all of them are accepted as thesis by universities. Which idea will be accepted as true? Is there any rule for that ? Or, is there any association who evaluates their validity?