In this last sphere we split into groups and wrote a section of a wikipedia article to later be posted on the famous webpage. My group was in charge of the section titled 'Mediums'. It was our responsibility reference and define the many different mediums used in public sphere writing. So we used the constructed outline and filled in the the necessary information that we saw fit for out section of the article to seamlessly fit into the page as a whole.
Taking Kittrain's lead, we jumped into the sandbox and and began conducting what we believed to be the best course for the Mediums section. Using multiple texts from class and even outside sources from other classes we sculpted the different aspects involved in Mediums: Print and Digital. We took the two and expanded both giving examples of both sections.
In the Print section we discussed the use of Peer reviewed journals and magazines. This is where we folded the group constructing Types into our section. They had made the sections of Magazine, Peer Reviewed Journals and Letters and Editorials. We folded those into the Print section. In the Digital Section we focused mainly on Blogs, Hypermediation, and Multimodality.
It was a little more difficult going from a 3 person group to a 6 person group with everyone suggesting their own ideas for just one section of the entire article. The final workshop made it easier to talk to the group as a whole and work out the problems associated with the section. I think at the end of the day we had a pretty solid section compared to the week before when the two groups were still working separate.
I found it much easier to work on the article when not in the chaos of the classroom. It was much harder to edit and change things when someone is going behind you and changing them back. In Kittrain's essay on the lessons of wikipedia he talks about Wikipedia encouraging us to be bold, and to take the plunge. It was nerve wracking at first, but once it as under way, it came very easy to do.
-D
Thursday, December 4, 2014
Thursday, November 20, 2014
Playing in The Sandbox
For this assignment i was asked choose from a list of articles flagged by Wikipedia as needing editing, and edit them. Sounds simple enough, until I actually got into the sandbox itself. I am not versed in the art of code writing. This was a challenge that I was not expecting, going in to the assignment. Luckily Wikipedia has a cheat sheet that gives you the codes needed to edit a Wikipedia article. I also discovered very quickly that to edit an article, it is probably wise to have a little bit of background knowledge on the subject matter. I chose the article I did for the simple reason of not really understanding the others presented before me.
I chose to edit the article titled History of Machine Translation. My edits were minor, as the article itself was well written. I simply went in looking for grammatical and spelling errors. I focused my attention on "The Early Years" section. There was plenty to edit in that section alone.
In Zittrain's essay "Lessons of Wikipedia" he discusses the pros and cons of having an editable database of knowledge. An editable encyclopedia, that anyone can choose to edit as they see fit. I can see the problem with taking on the responsibility of editing and fine tuning an article that, in theory, will be read by the world. The task looks and feels daunting. But once i jumped into the sandbox, head first, it wasn't as scary as I thought it would be.
Mind you, I was nervous about taking someone else's and work and changing it, for the better I hoped. My task was simple enough, until I got the editing page. I did not anticipate the use of code in the html editing page. I'm not sure if I understand how it works. So, instead of worrying about linking to other articles and citing work (which really was taken care of by the previous author), I decided the most important thing the article needed with proofreading.
I find it much easier to proofread and correct others peoples work than my own. It always helps to have a second pair of eyes on any type of written work. So that's what I did. I was the next set of eyes, looking for simple mistakes that get overlooked by the one writing the original article.
In not time, I was editing and correcting grammar and sentence structure. I simply gave the article a fresh lift that made it easier to read and understand. The article was well written and from what I could see, well cited. It just needed a second pair of eyes.
I chose to edit the article titled History of Machine Translation. My edits were minor, as the article itself was well written. I simply went in looking for grammatical and spelling errors. I focused my attention on "The Early Years" section. There was plenty to edit in that section alone.
In Zittrain's essay "Lessons of Wikipedia" he discusses the pros and cons of having an editable database of knowledge. An editable encyclopedia, that anyone can choose to edit as they see fit. I can see the problem with taking on the responsibility of editing and fine tuning an article that, in theory, will be read by the world. The task looks and feels daunting. But once i jumped into the sandbox, head first, it wasn't as scary as I thought it would be.
Mind you, I was nervous about taking someone else's and work and changing it, for the better I hoped. My task was simple enough, until I got the editing page. I did not anticipate the use of code in the html editing page. I'm not sure if I understand how it works. So, instead of worrying about linking to other articles and citing work (which really was taken care of by the previous author), I decided the most important thing the article needed with proofreading.
I find it much easier to proofread and correct others peoples work than my own. It always helps to have a second pair of eyes on any type of written work. So that's what I did. I was the next set of eyes, looking for simple mistakes that get overlooked by the one writing the original article.
In not time, I was editing and correcting grammar and sentence structure. I simply gave the article a fresh lift that made it easier to read and understand. The article was well written and from what I could see, well cited. It just needed a second pair of eyes.
Tuesday, November 11, 2014
Maraba Coffee
Wikipedia's featured article on Maraba Coffee does a wonderful job of sticking to the criteria set forth. The article follows the guidelines almost to a tee. It is a well written article; maybe not brilliant writing, but it is easy to read and it flows nicely through the table of contents. It is a comprehensive article. It has major facts listed about how the coffee is made and how its establishment came to be. The research that has been done is stable. Multiple links are available throughout the article to give more information, and to back up the writers facts. It is also a stable article. It doesn't have multiple edits, though its not exactly a subject that needs to be debated. It is merely an article informing of the making, distribution, and history of the type of coffee bean.
This article has a lead to which the reader can verify and understand what is to come in the article. It has appropriate structure, in that it flows through the history of the maraba coffee. It begins with the start of the company and ends with where they are at now. The article itself is the perfect example of what a featured Wikipedia article should be.
On another note, Marshall McLuhan's and Michelle Citron's biographies are less than acceptable of feature articles. They do not meet the criteria featured articles are held against and each have their own differences in which they do not fit.
While McLuhan's article is well written and very informative, it is written more like a book than an article. Instead of stating basic points and keeping to a narrow focus, it drones on, on the history of the man and every accomplishment he has made in his entire life. I think we could have done without the notes of his younger brother and the history of his family name, neither of which have any relevance later in the article. It is very comprehensive, and it flows naturally through McLuhan's life but again it is very long and drawn out. Most of the information presented is unnecessary for a wikipedia article. I think it should be more informative rather than a book length entry of the man.
Citron's article is narrow, concise, and to the point. It gives her background, her credentials, her filmography, and thats it. Its written less like a biography, and more like a brochure. Although I liked reading it, and it was easy to read and understand, it was missing any depth at all. There are no illustrations on the page. No pictures of her or her work. Even her list of filmography is incomplete. It is possible that the information was unavailable at the time the article was written, but it has very little information for anyone looking to do some research on Michelle Citron.
I think a happy medium would make the two articles more apt to become feature articles on Wikipedia. They both lack necessary ingredients needed to function in the criteria. Citron needs a little more. McLuahn needs a lot less.
This article has a lead to which the reader can verify and understand what is to come in the article. It has appropriate structure, in that it flows through the history of the maraba coffee. It begins with the start of the company and ends with where they are at now. The article itself is the perfect example of what a featured Wikipedia article should be.
On another note, Marshall McLuhan's and Michelle Citron's biographies are less than acceptable of feature articles. They do not meet the criteria featured articles are held against and each have their own differences in which they do not fit.
While McLuhan's article is well written and very informative, it is written more like a book than an article. Instead of stating basic points and keeping to a narrow focus, it drones on, on the history of the man and every accomplishment he has made in his entire life. I think we could have done without the notes of his younger brother and the history of his family name, neither of which have any relevance later in the article. It is very comprehensive, and it flows naturally through McLuhan's life but again it is very long and drawn out. Most of the information presented is unnecessary for a wikipedia article. I think it should be more informative rather than a book length entry of the man.
Citron's article is narrow, concise, and to the point. It gives her background, her credentials, her filmography, and thats it. Its written less like a biography, and more like a brochure. Although I liked reading it, and it was easy to read and understand, it was missing any depth at all. There are no illustrations on the page. No pictures of her or her work. Even her list of filmography is incomplete. It is possible that the information was unavailable at the time the article was written, but it has very little information for anyone looking to do some research on Michelle Citron.
I think a happy medium would make the two articles more apt to become feature articles on Wikipedia. They both lack necessary ingredients needed to function in the criteria. Citron needs a little more. McLuahn needs a lot less.
Thursday, November 6, 2014
Public Sphere Knowledge
In Wiebe's essay Plagiarism and Promiscuity, plagiarism is address on a 21st century level. It states thats its not enough to run essays through a detection system. Not all of the content used is even in the digital database, and most of these tools don't detect 'custom essays'. It is up to educators to address the issue at the source, and to make sure students know what all counts as plagiarism. Most people don't even know that they are cheating.
In Ridolfo and Rife's article Rhetorical Velocity and Copyright, we see the example of using an image with out the subjects approval as Copyright infringement. But the way the picture travels and makes its way through the campus suggests the act of Rhetorical Velocity; the act of actual rhetoric sailing through time and space in order to inform others of the issue long after the image was taken.
In these two article we learn about the dangers and consequences of both plagiarism and copyright. Both must be taken into account in order to produce sound and safe information. Rhetorical Velocity cannot always be controlled. And once a story gets out its hard to stop it from circulating around the current media.
To avoid plagiarism and copyright we need to have correct information from multiple sources and give little to no room for interpretation in our work, less it be taken the wrong way and used for the wrong purposes.
-D
In Ridolfo and Rife's article Rhetorical Velocity and Copyright, we see the example of using an image with out the subjects approval as Copyright infringement. But the way the picture travels and makes its way through the campus suggests the act of Rhetorical Velocity; the act of actual rhetoric sailing through time and space in order to inform others of the issue long after the image was taken.
In these two article we learn about the dangers and consequences of both plagiarism and copyright. Both must be taken into account in order to produce sound and safe information. Rhetorical Velocity cannot always be controlled. And once a story gets out its hard to stop it from circulating around the current media.
To avoid plagiarism and copyright we need to have correct information from multiple sources and give little to no room for interpretation in our work, less it be taken the wrong way and used for the wrong purposes.
-D
Thursday, October 30, 2014
The Encyclopedia Without Road Signs
In Kittrain's "The Lessons of Wikipedia", he starts by explaining an experiment taking place in Germany: take away all traffics lights and signs and see how the drivers react. The experiment itself has proven a success; the original proposition to trust people to pay more attention with less consequences has giving drivers the initiative to drive with more caution. Rather than relying on other drivers to follow the rules of the road, they are individually following driver etiquette, and not being assholes on the road. I'm guessing this has caused, not only the number of motor vehicle accidents, but also the debilitating symptom of Road Rage, to be reduced dramatically.
He then segway's into the discussion of a public run website called Wikipedia. We've all heard of it before, because our teachers and professors demand it to never be used in academic research or sited for an academic paper. Why do they loath it with the power of a thousand suns? Some students say it's because the website does the professors job without having to sit through a meaningless and uneventful lecture. While that may be true, I think the most popular reason is because the website has been created to be a socially edited blog sans the comments. Anyone can create an account and add articles, make corrections to previous ones, or even change an entire article based on their own research (research in the simplest form of the word. suffice it to say that the ones changing entire articles have been known as pranksters just to stir up some trouble).
Many precautions have been taken to avoid edits that are incorrect or misinformation. In fact, there is even a list of all the edits a page has ever been through and the authors that made them. Although, Wikipedia promotes those who make mistakes, because those making them are bold enough to attempt it. There are a team of editors and admins to fix and correct any mistake they find, so its pretty much a free for all information database. Wikipedia pushes the statement that the rules they set forth are not 'set in stone', meaning the rules have exceptions and can even change if need be. They say that the rules and substance of the website must evolve as we do; in order for it to grow, it must be moldable.
Wikipedia is an open encyclopedia without road signs, relying on the integrity of its subscribers to make her flourish. There are some that want to bend and break the rules, but the vast majority of the population wants to just inform others, and open the expanse of knowledge we all hold within us. I'm sorry that all the other professors and teachers are jealous of its teaching capability; it's not the websites fault for being so popular.
-D
He then segway's into the discussion of a public run website called Wikipedia. We've all heard of it before, because our teachers and professors demand it to never be used in academic research or sited for an academic paper. Why do they loath it with the power of a thousand suns? Some students say it's because the website does the professors job without having to sit through a meaningless and uneventful lecture. While that may be true, I think the most popular reason is because the website has been created to be a socially edited blog sans the comments. Anyone can create an account and add articles, make corrections to previous ones, or even change an entire article based on their own research (research in the simplest form of the word. suffice it to say that the ones changing entire articles have been known as pranksters just to stir up some trouble).
Many precautions have been taken to avoid edits that are incorrect or misinformation. In fact, there is even a list of all the edits a page has ever been through and the authors that made them. Although, Wikipedia promotes those who make mistakes, because those making them are bold enough to attempt it. There are a team of editors and admins to fix and correct any mistake they find, so its pretty much a free for all information database. Wikipedia pushes the statement that the rules they set forth are not 'set in stone', meaning the rules have exceptions and can even change if need be. They say that the rules and substance of the website must evolve as we do; in order for it to grow, it must be moldable.
Wikipedia is an open encyclopedia without road signs, relying on the integrity of its subscribers to make her flourish. There are some that want to bend and break the rules, but the vast majority of the population wants to just inform others, and open the expanse of knowledge we all hold within us. I'm sorry that all the other professors and teachers are jealous of its teaching capability; it's not the websites fault for being so popular.
-D
Tuesday, October 7, 2014
Is Using Wikipedia In Fact Blasphemy or Is It Simply Misunderstood
For my edit, the article I decided to use was Mark Moran's The Top 10 Reasons Students Cannot Cite or Rely on Wikipedia. While reading the article, I got the sense that Moran was personally victimized by the website, and decided to take out his frustrations by informing the public to not use Wikipedia for scholarly sources. By using Rebecca Jones' essay Finding The Good Argument or Why Bother With Logic, I found a way to make is article an argument for both sides of the problem, rather than a simple bashing of the website.
I crossed out words or phrases I thought were maybe too harsh, and added text with red to state a second side of the argument or to add my thoughts on what he was saying. He may have very well wanted to state his argument by simply using all of the fault of Wikipedia; but I think to write a successful essay for people to be able to make an informed decision must be un-biased. His own personal experiences are welcome to state the negative side of the argument, but staying unbiased as you inform readers of something gives them confidence in your agenda. Rather than trying to persuade his readers to side with him, let them use the essay to make an informed decision for themselves. After all, the article states that if one doesn't double check facts, it could have dangerous implications; the same applies to the article at hand.
"News reporters and the purveyors of mass media have an ostensible commitment to a realist, even a positivist, epistemology. They are supposedly devoted to the fact. In principle, their brand of objectivity resembles that of applied science, a hardheaded insistence on maintaining their own perspective against the pressures and intrusions of the governmental and corporate powers" (Ecospeak, M. Jimmie Killingsworth; Jacqueline Palmer.)
I think Moran is an exact example is this quote from Killingsworth and Palmers article Ecospeak. He doesn't have an unbiased approach of informing the public of the trouble with using Wikipedia. Instead he is using, what seems like, his own personal issue with the website. I did my best to edit his article in order to reflect an unbiased stance on the issue. No, Wikipedia is not the best website to use for scholarly citing, but if use properly and having sources checked against similar articles, it can be a useful tool in narrowing down information to better synthesize.
-D
I crossed out words or phrases I thought were maybe too harsh, and added text with red to state a second side of the argument or to add my thoughts on what he was saying. He may have very well wanted to state his argument by simply using all of the fault of Wikipedia; but I think to write a successful essay for people to be able to make an informed decision must be un-biased. His own personal experiences are welcome to state the negative side of the argument, but staying unbiased as you inform readers of something gives them confidence in your agenda. Rather than trying to persuade his readers to side with him, let them use the essay to make an informed decision for themselves. After all, the article states that if one doesn't double check facts, it could have dangerous implications; the same applies to the article at hand.
"News reporters and the purveyors of mass media have an ostensible commitment to a realist, even a positivist, epistemology. They are supposedly devoted to the fact. In principle, their brand of objectivity resembles that of applied science, a hardheaded insistence on maintaining their own perspective against the pressures and intrusions of the governmental and corporate powers" (Ecospeak, M. Jimmie Killingsworth; Jacqueline Palmer.)
I think Moran is an exact example is this quote from Killingsworth and Palmers article Ecospeak. He doesn't have an unbiased approach of informing the public of the trouble with using Wikipedia. Instead he is using, what seems like, his own personal issue with the website. I did my best to edit his article in order to reflect an unbiased stance on the issue. No, Wikipedia is not the best website to use for scholarly citing, but if use properly and having sources checked against similar articles, it can be a useful tool in narrowing down information to better synthesize.
-D
Thursday, September 25, 2014
Reflection
My approach to the sci/tech blog was to wait for inspiration
to strike. When it didn’t I had to go looking for answers. I chose the article
by Mueller and Oppenheimer simply because the title grabbed my attention faster than the others. I then I to find something that I could use to relate to the article and came across DiSalvo's blog.
While reading "The Pen is Mightier Then the Keyboard", i quickly decided how I wanted to transform it. I wanted to use the argument that laptops were worse for taking notes and turn it into a post on why this generation is seen as stupid, or ignorant, by previous generations. That is where DiSalvo comes him. He has a brilliant post called "Think Fast, Are We Really Getting Dumber?".
In the post he uses the "IQ dropped 14 points over the last century" as a grabbing technique and then give information on how the IQ test is made and how it is not necessarily an accurate measuring tool for knowledge and wisdom. I used this post and Mueller's article form my piece to bring up the question, What is making us dumb?
By combining the two, I was able to bring up a point that my mother always likes to use when I don't know something "your generation is full of lazy ignorant kids." So I posed the question: is technology making us dumb, or is it our parents?
I quickly steered away from the genetic conversation to avoid controversy, and focused on the technology argument. The article by mueller proposes that handwritten notes are more beneficial than those taken on a laptop. But technology is inescapable, therefore, must be used in everyday life. Laptops are now required by most classes. So in order to succeed, we will need to use the tools available.
Technology and computers are not making us stupid. They are making it easier to gain the knowledge unknown to us before. We can learn anything we want with just a keyboard and an internet connection.
Mueller, Pam Oppenheimer, Daniel The Pen is Mightier Than the Keyboard: The Advantages of Longhand Over Laptop Note Taking
DiSalvo, David Think Fast, Are We Really Getting Dumber The Daily Brain
-D
Mueller, Pam Oppenheimer, Daniel The Pen is Mightier Than the Keyboard: The Advantages of Longhand Over Laptop Note Taking
DiSalvo, David Think Fast, Are We Really Getting Dumber The Daily Brain
-D
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)