Wiki-Reflection

When I first heard about the Wikipedia project, I was excited. I use Wikipedia pretty often and I couldn't wait to see my own work on the site. Then, we had to decide the topic about which we would write. That's when things started getting tricky. Our topic had to be something which was lacking in the Wiki-world and be something about which we could write roughly 10,000 words. So, the class chose Multimodality. Unfortunately, I don't think the class was really thinking about that whole “10,000 words” part. Multimodality is so simple that saying so much about it is bound to be redundant and not as useful as we want. So, when we voted for our topic, I was none too happy about it. Then, we were assigned groups and actually started working on our sections. At that point, everyone else started to realize what I'd been so unhappy about to begin with. We all struggled to find credible sources and relevant information. Writing was the hardest task. Writing a Wikipedia article is so much more difficult than normal writing. Keeping a neutral point of view, stating only facts with no opinions or editorializations, and citing everything seemed to be too big of a task. But, I jumped in and tried my best. I managed to come up with some good information with credible citations, but... I was nowhere near my word count. I was actually only halfway to it. So, after searching and searching and failing to find any more relevant information for my part of our group's section, I just started writing what I knew about multimodality and what I felt was relevant. This got me to my word count, but I figured most of it would get edited out. Ultimately, some of what I wrote on my own ended up getting used in the end product along with my source-produced text. This made me feel a bit better about the writing, but the editing was still to come. Although I consider myself to be somewhat of an editor, looking at this combined article was a nightmare. 20 different voices sang out from this one article, sounding like a maniac's thousand voices speaking in his head. Since people learn different skills I different schools and from different teachers, the spelling and punctuation differed from paragraph to paragraph. Since we all wrote separately, there was a lot of repetition. It was hard to get through. But, eventually, as a class, we did. I've never taken part in such a large-scale collaboration, and to be honest, I wouldn't want to do it again. Although it made for less work on an individual basis, people are so different that it's too difficult to try to make them all the same person; it's too hard to turn 20 voices into 1, and you shouldn't have to. After this experience, I will never write for Wikipedia again. I'll just leave that to the people who the time, patience, and NPOV which it takes to create Wiki-articles.

Helping Out

Smaller Task

   For the smaller task, I chose the "Development Communication" article because it was an article which needed copy editing.  As an EWM major, I love copy editing and haven't gotten the chance to do much of it in my classes, so I saw this as an opportunity to play "Grammar Police."  ("Grammar Police" was a nickname of mine in high school due to my copy editing skills, which I gladly used to help my classmates with their papers.)  I went through the article with a careful eye, fixing many errors in punctuation and spelling.  ((Sidebar:  I forgot to sign my name using ~~~~ because I wasn't sure where to do so...))  I used many of the concepts in the WWC chapter about Punctuation, along with the many grammar rules I've learned throughout my school years.  As WWC states, "Indeed, it's amazing how a series of tiny dots and dashes and a variety of intuitive strokes can help direct our reading and comprehension." (97)  As amazing as that is, it's equally amazing to me how easy it is to forget how to properly use a semicolon, where to place commas, and what really merits parentheses.  I did what Wikipedia considers a "Minor Edit" that affects the article in a major way.

Larger Task

   For the larger task, I selected the article about Avalon High, a Disney movie.  I chose this article for two reasons.  Firstly, I was looking under the Copy Editing section of the Help Out page so that I could continue with my "Grammar Police" act.  Secondly, I've actually seen this movie and I liked it.  So, I figured that editing it would be fun for me and it could help promote a movie which, in my opinion, deserves a bigger audience.

    Unfortunately, this article not only fell prey to punctuation, spelling, and grammar errors, but it suffered from a miscommunicated plot summary.  This article was fairly short, so all of the information needed to be sufficient.  The summary made several assumptions, yet called them facts.  It was inconsistent with the information provided (more for one character, less for another).  It used words which perhaps had a denotation sufficient for the meaning conveyed, but lacked connotative support.  I used my Editing skills (not just copy editing, but Editing) to help this page.  However, I left the summary a bit inconclusive so as not to reveal any spoilers for those who haven't seen the film. (Personally, I hate spoilers and feel an intense rage toward anyone who reveals them to me.) Style says it best, "Once we decide that a writer is careless, lazy, or self-indulgent - well, our days are too few to spend them on those indifferent to our needs." (125)  I feel that the original author of this article didn't care enough about the reader to give them clear, concise information about the topic.  Conversely, I care about the reader enough not to ruin the surprise plot twist of the film.  As I remarked earlier, I feel that this movie deserves a bigger audience.  (I originally watched this movie with my stepdaughter who was 6 at the time (I was 21), and we both liked it.  Not too long after that, we wanted to watch it again, but her father who was 34 at the time, was home.  He even liked it. And he is not a big fan of kid/family movies.  That just proves that this is a great film the whole family can enjoy together.)  The editing I did to this article makes the film seem more appealing, yet doesn't drop any major bombs on the reader that would cause them to shy away from the film.  This editing task was truly a big help.

(After I turned the assignment in on BB, I went back to look at it for this reflection, and I realized that there were some other edits which needed to be made.  I made them, but then found that I couldn't submit it because I had already submitted one paper for the assignment.  So, I copied the edited text to a new page on my blog and linked it below.  It doesn't, however, show the changes tracked, only the final version.  I emailed you the Word document as well so that you could see the changes.)
(View Edited Page Here)

   Overall, I actually had fun editing these two articles.  I feel that I managed to help the articles become better, and that's what we're all striving for, right?

Wiki Comparisons

Wikipedia is a cornucopia of knowledge and misinformation. Knowing that Wikipedia has a page for just about everything, I decided to search for a few Public Discourse-related terms. The two pages which I analyzed were Metatextuality and Intertextuality. Though the two are closely linked, their Wikipedia pages are very different.

The Metatextuality page is virtually empty. There are two sentences giving the definition of the term, one reference, and four related links. There are no illustrations. The tone of this page (though it's barely perceptible due to it's briefness) is informational.

The Intertextuality page, by contrast, is quite full. There is not only a paragraph of definition, but there is an image, quotes, a connection to culture, examples, a history of use, references, works cited, and a lengthier list of related links. The tone of this page is, like the Metatextuality page, informational. Simply scrolling down the page, you'll encounter a wealth of blue hyperlinks, unlike the Metatextuality page, which only has three hyperlinks. This page also has nine references, six sources, some with multiple references.

While Wikipedia has a lot of knowledge, that doesn't necessarily translate to a lot of knowledge per subject. 

Metatextuality

Intertextuality

(Teaching) Levels of Conflict

It was a dark and stormy night when my (now ex-) boyfriend and I had a level 5 conflict.

{A Level Five Conflict (according to David Kaufer's article “A Plan for Teaching the Development of Original Policy Arguments”) is when the participants of an argument hold differing global values (by global, he means values that people hold consistently across different topics).}

It started out as a normal phone call.

 “How was your day?”

“I miss you!”

And so on... But then I made a reference to the Bible. That was the beginning of the end. He scoffed at my remark, and at first, I thought that he was joking – he loved to tease me. Then I found out that he was serious. Of course I knew that he was a Christian and that we shared many values, but this was the night when I found out that he didn't believe that the Bible was truly the inspired Word of God. We argued back and forth for about 45 minutes.

“It's true!”

“Is not!”

“Is so!”

Finally, I realized that I wasn't going to change his mind. (And obviously, he wasn't going to change mine.) The problem was that we held different global values, and neither of us could be swayed. We'd both been brought up and were set in our ways. Thus, the Level 5 Conflict became the end of a (well, let's face it) bad relationship.

Conflict and arguments are seen everywhere in our society. Even scholarly articles can be an argument of sorts.

Mark Moran's article “TheTop Ten Reasons Students Cannot Cite or Rely on Wikipedia” is an argument that is exactly what it sounds like: a list of reason why Wikipedia is not to be trusted. While his article is geared toward students, it can apply to any Wikipedia users.

Moran's article can be seen as a simulation – according to Rebecca Jones' article on “Finding the Good Argument” – because the writer engages in a single argument and expresses his claims about that argument. Moran doesn't do too in depth about many of his claims and he doesn't provide a counter argument at all. Moran's claims weigh heavily on his scale of what is appropriate for school papers.

“Wikipedia can actually be a constructive tool in the classroom if understood and used correctly.”

This statement is made by Moran near the end of his article. This statement could be seen as a violation of The Usage Rule, as defined by Jones' article, because it completely subverts his arguments. He doesn't counter this statement with a “But...” and his entire article left no room for exceptions. Throughout the article, Moran is very adamant about not using Wikipedia and not trusting it and how it isn't scholarly. Even the title includes the word “Cannot” instead of “Shouldn't” which would have allowed for exceptions. For him to include this sentence kind of throws the reader for a loop, for it doesn't seem to belong and it can therefore be construed a misleading.

“Reliablility”

“Rely”

“Standards”

“Credibility”

“Trust”

These value terms (possibly considered ideographs) are some of the terms that are used throughout Moran's article. These terms, however, are more often than not paired with “Cannot” and “Don't.” Because he uses terms that have such strong associations in the minds of most readers, he can more easily manipulate the readers into agreeing with him.

Editing Analysis

While editing Moran's "Top Ten Reasons Students Cannot Cite or Rely on Wikipedia," the first thing I did was line edit.  Not much was wrong with this article.  Next, I considered word choice and changed a few things which I thought could be said in a more appropriate way.  Then, I moved a few things around to make the article flow better. 

Honestly, I didn't find too much to be wrong with this article.  It made sense.  For the most part, it flowed.  Perhaps I didn't really understand what I was supposed to be doing, because I feel like I didn't do very much.  The article was easy to understand.  The arguments were valid.  The claims were cited properly.  I feel like the article was stable and unhindered by fluff to weigh it down.  It was coherent, cohesive, ethical, punctuated properly, and it stayed consistent throughout.

Original Article
Edited Article

For Argument's Sake...

“It is important to see that we don’t just talk about arguments in terms of war. We actually win or lose arguments. We see the person we are arguing with as an opponent. We attack his positions and we defend our own. We gain and lose ground. We plan and use strategies. If we find a position indefensible, we can abandon it and take a new line of attack. Many of the things we do in arguing are partially structured by the concept of war.” (Lakoff and Johnson, 4)

Rebecca Jones, in her article “Finding the Good Argument,” points out that most Americans think of arguments in terms of war. “All's fair in love and war” is one of the most prevalent sayings in our nation, and it therefore brings negative connotations to the forefront of everybody's minds. However, as Jones points out, arguments don't always have to be about fighting your opponent and winning. Thinking about argument as a dance brings it to light in a much more positive way – one in which you aren't simply focused on winning. She mentions the 2008 presidential debate and how the candidates “dug in their heels” whether their argument was even relevant. I have listened to several debates – presidential and non – and some people don't even broach the topic given them, they simply start to argue. These people obviously think of argument as war – simply throwing grenades without aiming or waiting for direction. If they were to think about argument as a dance, they would understand the subject and have an easy back and forth with their “dance partner.”

Another way to think about argument is as Gorgias thought of it: ethos, logos, pathos. Ethos (credibility), logos (logic), and pathos (emotions), can be combined to achieve the maximum effect in any argument. It is easiest to start out with ethos. Establish your credibility first so that your audience doesn't question you. Then, you bring in the logical arguments. Finally, an emotional appeal has the ability to sway those few fence-riders left after your logical arguments have been made.

New Ruralism

I'm from a rural county in Florida. Calhoun County isn't as famous as Dade County. It isn't one rambling city like Duval County. It doesn't house a popular theme park. It doesn't grow row after row of orange trees. It doesn't have a well known swamp or lake or beach. You've probably never even heard of it. But the one thing that Calhoun County is rich in is green space. Unfortunately, not every county in America is as fortunate. Urban sprawl is slowly inching across our nation. Soon, America won't just be a country, it will be one big city. However, our country cannot survive solely on urban communities. We need green space to grow crops to provide food for our ever growing population.

One solution to reduce urban sprawl and provide much needed green space for growing crops is New Ruralism. New Ruralism is a way to ensure that certain rural areas are preserved and do not succumb to urban sprawl. Emily Stratton states her proposal in her white paper, “New Ruralism.”

“New Ruralism is a response for those rural areas on the urban edge that are most at risk for the encroachment of suburbanization, environmental degradation, and industrialization... [It] is the preservation and enhancement of rural areas as places that are indispensable to the economic, environmental, and cultural vitality of cities and metropolitan regions... The purpose of the preserved land can be conservation or sustainability, or a combination of both.”

New Ruralism would protect fields and farmlands to ensure that our country will always be able to grow crops to produce food for local consumers, not only those in the rural community, but consumers in nearby urban regions as well. “The goal is to eventually establish permanent agriculture preserves as sources of fresh food for urban regions,” (3). New Ruralism hopes to create more sources of fresh food for consumers, helping them stay healthy, reconnecting with nature, and helping our nation's economy.

With New Ruralism, our nation would be able to grow more crops to produce fresh food for consumers. Stratton says on page 3, “There is fear that the lost connection with nature and our food sources will create troubling consequences such as widespread obesity and disease outbreaks from mass-produced foods.”

350.org is a website dedicated to spreading knowledge that will guide people to making smarter and healthier choices for themselves and for our planet. The website states the following:

“Getting back to 350 is a unique opportunity to remake our communities in ways that are healthier, more locally self-sufficient, and honor traditional and indigenous wisdom. We can get away from relying so heavily on sources of fuel and food that come from far away, and instead grow more of our own food locally, ride bikes and public transit, depend on local energy systems like wind and solar, and create economies that aren’t as dependent upon limitless growth. These types of solutions help create communities that are not only friendlier to our climate, but are also healthier for our children’s lungs and our collective well-being.”

350.org is in line with New Ruralism. Not only will New Ruralism provide a self-sufficient country which grows and consumes it's own local food source, it will help consumers to stay healthy with fresh, preservative-free food.

What about genetically engineered food? The Biotech Manual states, “From years of research, we know that the benefits of food biotechnology are tremendous. The scientific consensus is that the risks associated with food biotechnology products are fundamentally the same as for other foods. Current science shows that foods made from biotechnology are safe to consume, and safe for the environment.” New Ruralism, however, doesn't want to break away from that connection with the land and all that it offers naturally. “New Ruralists hope to re-connect with the land itself... Industrialized agriculture is just as dangerous as sprawl in its lack of regard for nature and disrupting the connection between food source and the consumer,” (3). New Ruralism includes letting nature take its course instead of forcing nature into unnatural positions.

Locally grown food also helps to sustain our nation's economy. Outsourcing has become a big issue as of late. One thing that we can do to help raise our GDP (gross domestic product) is to produce an abundance of healthy crops within our nation both to sell to local consumers and to sell abroad. In order to grow such crops, we have to have the space in which to do so. New Ruralism gives us such space as is needed.

New Ruralism is a way for us as a nation to become more self-sufficient, become healthier, preserve land, and generate more local revenue. It provides food for local consumers. It reconnects with nature. It brings us back to a more natural state. It will help out everybody in America. But who will take care of these New Ruralist communities? Well, that's why God made a farmer...
 

 

NewRuralism. Stratton, Emily M. Fall 2009.

350.org

Biotech Manual

   Farmer Video

Reflection