15

The “conversation” starts off with Gee and Swales talking amongst themselves over by their lockers in a 1980’s high school setting. This nosey little eighth grader, named Ann Johns, is hiding around the corner listening in. She takes notes and goes home to write about what she heard in her diary. Three years later some guy at wiki-links got hold of the diary and realized it was some next level shit. At this point you have to understand that I haven’t read the article, just the intro. I didn’t know we had a post due until 9 AM. I skimmed and I’d imagine I could bull crap my way through, but honestly I’m having a bad day already, might as well let it ride. She defines several communities much like the other two, real original there. She brings up interesting points with the cost of affiliation. You have to act a certain way to be in the group.

Post 14

Gee makes the argument that primary discourse groups have a type of test, or rite of passage, that signals whether an individual is worthy of being in the community. It’s a conscious or sub-conscious test that people use to gauge an individuals’ knowledge of how the community works. It can be used to verify a member of the community or bar outsiders. It can also be used to examine whether or not an “apprentice” was put in the right place at the right time. Analyzing their knowledge and how well they communicate their knowledge is key here. We go through these tests every day. When you sit in a lecture hall it’s expected of you to act a certain way. An extreme example would be if I started bouncing in my seat and laughing I would be judged as a weird kid and the professor would probably take note of my crazy behavior. On a more subtle note, if I would just sit in the front row and turn and talk to the kid behind me I would be singled out again. I wasn’t doing anything absurd, but it’s not proper etiquette for a large lecture hall. The same thing will happen when we go for interviews. The interviewer is going to bring up key words and gauge our knowledge. For me as an engineer it will be something to do with the profession. It will go something like, “Mr. Cook, what can you tell me about CPM?” To which I would respond,” Critical path method is the primary method of analyzing schedules to maximize efficiency within the scope of the project”. If I were not part of the discourse community I would respond like this,” CPM is great, I love that band”. With that I can rest assured I’ll never get a job as an engineer.

Post 12

I agree with Barton’s argument that technology isn’t changing the face of writing. Of course there will be shorthand written via texting and e-mails. Have you ever taken a look at the notes you write in your lecture classes? They are written in shorthand without anything more than a pencil and piece of paper. Whether you’re writing on a computer or simple sheet of notebook paper the final essay is still graded on organization and correct grammar. Writing with a computer doesn’t let you misspell words as easily, but I’ve always had access to a dictionary while writing. The great thing about computers is ease of access and use. The ball point pen was invented to make writing easier than some POS feather dipped in ink. Language will evolve much as it did over the past several centuries, but a fundamental shift to acronyms and a lack of punctuation don’t seem to be possible. It’s not only a question of educators embracing new technology; it’s the question of what makes sense and is understandable to all who read our writings. I can’t throw in a random lol and expect my 78 year old grandmother to understand, so I write something she can understand like, “I laughed”.  Technology makes it easier, but you can’t fundamentally change thought. It’s a regression, if this than this.

Post 11

The four case studies seem extremely similar to me. Each of the four people was introduced to computers at a young age and 87.5% of the group is white middle class. I understand that this article is about the future of literacy in technology, but the four chosen are all about website or game design.  I would call myself computer literate, but not once in my childhood did I ever design a web page or game. I connect to Charles Jackson the most because he at least mentions that he built his computers. As a child I was very hands on. I took apart everything from hair dryers to lawn mowers just to understand how they worked.  Compared to these four cases I was raised in the stone ages. I played outside EVERYDAY. I didn’t start playing video games until my teens and didn’t set up my first e-mail until I was fourteen. I’ve seen my girlfriends younger sisters grow up around computers though, and they thrive in front of the computer screen. They play outside, but not like I did. I played from 9 AM to 9 PM. They might spend three hours outside, but they also play The Sims or Webkins, or make posters on paint for their pretend dog show.  I see a computer as a time waster most of the time. I can jump on Facebook or Stumbleupon for hours. Of course there is the work aspect with computer aided drafting and structural analysis, but my computer lifestyle, aside from academia, is almost completely centered on entertainment. Sure it’s a lucrative business, but not for me.

X Vs. Shermie

Malcom X starts his article explaining how he grew up in the streets and only went to school through eighth grade. He was, of course, African American. He explained that when he read books he didn't understand most words he was reading, so the books never made sense. On the other hand, Sherman Alexie started reading when he was three and read the Grapes of Wrath in kindergarten. He blamed his love of books on his father, because his father was obscessed with reading. Malcom X picked up reading in prison. He had a lot of free time and used it reading. He said, "I never felt more free". Alexie was made fun of for reading when he was a child. Malcom X was encouraged as a convict and Alexie was discouraged as a child. The pressure was a purely external. The two were both influenced heavily by the social situations in their lives at the time they began reading. X's literacy was praised because he was in prison and Alexie's literacy was shot down because he didn't fit the mold of an average Native American child.

Sponsors of Literacy

My primary literary sponsors in my early childhood were my father, preschool teachers, and my sisters. My father read to me and my two sisters every night before bed. He also would spin off random scientific facts all the time. I didn’t realize this even happened until I went back and watched some home movies. At four years old I learned what pH was and why water conducts electricity. My father wasn’t the kind of guy a child could keep asking why to.  The preschool I attended was also a Nazarene church. I was taught all the religious songs and we did the Christmas programs and read from the bible. The religious aspect didn’t stick. From four until nine years old I don’t remember learning a lot. My next major influence was elementary school; primary didn’t do anything for me.  I learned academically and socially from these two sponsors. On the football field I learned how to handle stress and be a leader. I was one of the bigger kids on the field so I took a leadership role early and that role has stuck with me since. More recently, I was sponsored by my employers. I’ve learned how to manage assets and handle document and information security.  From a banking perspective the red tape has increased substantially in the last two years. From stories told by supervisors, I’ve learned that the regulation noose is quickly tightening around corporate America. With only two years of experience I can already see this. The most recent sponsor I’ve had is the Civil Engineering department. In several of my classes the professors have told the students that understanding the jargon is as important as the math, because communicating with coworkers is essential. I wish I had more experience with the engineering literacy.  If I had been introduced earlier on my classes and communication with perspective employees would be much smoother. 

Reflection Essay

            Day one of Junior Composition and I was already excited. I had tried to write a Wikipedia article once while I was in high school. The amount of work put in to my first attempt was not dissimilar to the amount of work I put in to writing a note on my fridge. I had neither knowledge of neutral voice nor any reliable sources, and as such, my article about a made up word was promptly deleted. Through my creation of a currently successful Wikipedia article I deepened my knowledge on intertextualitly, reliable sources, unbiased language, and author credibility. My revelations have come from the writing process itself and the reflection afterward. To convey the following reflection, I need to include my experiences during writing.

            The first phase of writing my article required a topic. of course. That may sound simple, but with a library of 3,590,000 articles most topics were taken (Various). I listed myself as having knowledge in civil engineering, but the requested topics for civil engineering were beyond my scope of knowledge. I ultimately decided to settle on a local event, and the Athens Ohio Halloween Block Party article was born.  I settled on the block party idea because a similar article about Palmerfest in Athens had already been established on Wikipedia.  Wikipedia suggests looking at and imitating similar articles. That advice made learning the particular syntax of Wikipedia easier to pick up on.

            An article without sources; and, more importantly reputable sources is extremely tough to keep on Wikipedia. With that in mind, finding acceptable sources for my article became a little tough. The block party is large, on the magnitude of tens of thousands of participants, but there isn’t a formal invitation. There’s no list of activities, maybe a set list for the stage and a few flyers around town, but nothing concrete. The bulk of my sources were three, paragraph regional newspaper articles, although I did find an .edu source and a national magazine article. Establishing notability without any reputation takes references, a lot of references; and images.

            It would seem simple to have a picture of Halloween in Athens, considering I live here. Unfortunately, that wasn’t the case. To capture the magnitude of the crowd I needed an overhead view. Luckily the wonderful City of Athens has cameras at the major intersections uptown and the images are public. Even though the image was taken from the public domain I still had to find the author and get permission to use it. I doubt I could track down the particular police officer or city employee that snapped that image, so I did what any upstanding author would do. I claimed it as my own.  I was always told by my dad that, “It’s easier to ask for forgiveness than permission”. Just don’t tell Wikimedia.

            So there I was. I had this beautiful article, complete with image, table of information, history, and arrest statistics with several reputable references. I submitted the article for review and in less than eight hours I got back a response. The verdict was of course, not notable. In my eyes 30,000 people a year since 1974 is notable, but not to Mabdul, the user name of my friendly peer editor.  Even with that confidence boost from the friendly editors at Wikipedia I went ahead and made my article live. After the article went live I thought I would be done, but that wasn’t true either.

            That summary brings us to the current state of affairs with my article. I check back on the article almost daily, finding little things that need fixed and links that can be made. This process is known as monitoring. It was mentioned by Robert Tierney and P. David Pearson in, “Toward a Composing Model of Reading” (185). The article mentions that monitoring is a continuous process, and with Wikipedia the process is amplified even more. Not only do I monitor the article, any reader that finds a problem with the article and edits it then becomes a monitor. When I say, “my article”, I mean that in the loosest sense possible. The article takes on the ownership of anyone that edits it. To that end, the article will never be complete.

                Looking back, Wikipedia’s hunger for neutrality and third person writing is reminiscent of a sixth grade English teacher.  Any bias and the article is sure to be deleted. Writing about a subject the writer has knowledge of also means the author has an opinion or bias toward the subject. To be successful in the discourse community that is Wikipedia the author must play by the rules and meet certain general requirements.  A lot can be taken from the experience. An author can’t just throw in random citations; they are actually checked for validity. When a writer creates an article for Wikipedia they must “sell” the article. Without a, “continuity of concern” the article is bound to fail. (Murray, 64)

            It was mentioned previously that the layout of the block party article was borrowed from a similar article. This concept beautifully highlights the concept of intertextuality. Intertextuality is the idea that all texts draw from previous texts, and that no ideas are original; only that the ways they are placed together are original. All the information for the article already existed. No groundbreaking research was done on Halloween or alcohol consumption before this article. All the information existed, just not in the current form.

            Since the Halloween Block Party article went live on September 28, 2011 four editors and one robot have made changes to the article. One of the edits made information on the article incorrect. Articles on Wikipedia are interconnected by linking different pages together and one of the edits for the Halloween Block Party was a link to the Athens Police Department. Unfortunately, the Police Department that was linked was actually in Athens, Georgia, not Athens, Ohio. The fact this change was made and went unchecked for several days raises the question of validity of facts on Wikipedia. Minor edits aren’t questioned. When the entire Pop Tart page is replaced by three words the error is obvious, but small things can go unchecked. A small error here and there may not seem like a problem, but spread that out over the massive number of articles on Wikipedia and the problem becomes obvious. During editing before going live with the article the article was submitted to the Drawing Board on Wikipedia. Some students received decent feedback on their articles. The author (I) didn’t receive notice of any suggestions, so the Drawing Board didn’t help much.

            Online forums like Wikipedia are undoubtedly the future for encyclopedic information. The ability for experts in any particular field to post their wealth of knowledge for all others to see is an amazing idea. Sadly, any Joe Schmo, like an undergraduate at Ohio University, can also share their “wealth” of knowledge. The idea of ethos goes out the door and is replaced by a universal conscience. Articles are melting pots of hundreds of authors. And with “The Phenomenology of Error” article by Joseph M. Williams ideas’ in mind we have to wander which edits are right and which are wrong. And more fundamentally what is right and what is wrong. Error, much like love, is in the eye of the beholder. As Wikipedia grows and computer programs become more advanced and able to spot errors one has to wander where the limit is, what is notable when there is an infinite amount of space. Bigfoot and The Loch Ness Monster have pages. How long until the Cook family have a page? How long until personal profiles of every human being on the internet are available? Oh wait, Facebook.

Bibliography

Murray, Donald M. "All Writing is Autobiography." Elizabeth Wardle, Doug Downs. Writing         About    Writing. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2011. 57-65.

Robert J. Tierney, P. David Pearson. "Toward a Composing Model of Reading." Elizabeth Wardle,           Doug Downs. Writing About Writing. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2011. 175-188.

Various. Wikipedia: Size Comparisons. 30 September 2011. 5 October 2011             < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page  >.

Williams, Joseph M. "The Phenomenology of Error." Elizabeth Wardle, Doug Downs. Writing       About Writing. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2011. 38-54.

Shitty First Drafts

Lamont attempts to educate the reader on the fact that great writing doesn’t just happen (usually). She argues that most writers struggle just like anyone else when starting out, except for Muriel Spark apparently.  The assumption that writing comes naturally to these people is so prevalent because their work is getting published and they’re making money, so of course it comes naturally to them. Lamont argues that writing starts out with a shitty first draft, good second draft, and finishes with a terrific third draft. I personally think this essay is part shitty first draft. She gets her point through, but damn does she struggle keeping her thoughts coherent at the end. She mentions the voices in her head and mice, I especially enjoyed the Orwell reference, I love 1984. But, back to the point, when we view the history of an article on Wikipedia we can go back to the extremely shitty first draft. Unfortunately, the articles we submitted last week are in fact, shitty first drafts. As we move forward through the history of articles on Wikipedia we can see a progression from a steaming pile of shit, to a dried up pile, then some manure and eventually a beautiful flower if we’re lucky. Of course that flower sprouting from the shitty first draft still could use a pruning and watering and what not, but that terrible pile of shit we call assignment 1 really has the possibility of becoming a beautiful flower, or something like that. FIN 

Post 7 (late)

The closest metaphor that Tomlinson describes to my revising process would be tying things off. I’ve never been much for revising. When we started this class and you said a few small changes won’t cut it for revision my heart sank a little. I typically restructure while writing, but we’ve mentioned that writing is not a linear process. So I revise while drafting. The other metaphor would be the ore metaphor. I do the revision sentence by sentence, because fundamentally changing the entire work after it is written seems like a huge waste to me. I’d like to get more into the painting analogy to build on what I have. I find it tough to add to an essay once I’ve written it.  In reference to Wikipedia’s revision process we can learn more from what is “fixed” in any article than we can just editing our own work.  When you view history on a Wikipedia article we can see revisions and edits from 10’s to 1000’s of writers. The scrutiny that each article faces in one day is way greater than what most publications face in a year, especially for popular articles like Christmas which has been edited to some degree over 2500 times in the last 7 years.  Since my article went up last Wednesday it’s been edited by three people and two “bot” programs. (but it’s still up) The ability to completely delete articles raises questions about how powerful the revising process. On Wikipedia another person can look at an authors work and decide that the entire article just isn’t important or written correctly.  That’s a little extreme in my mind.