In discussion, we wondered about ways we might evaluate electronic texts, along with the question of what an "electronic text" is, if it is a text at all.
The attempt to stabilize something like a website or hyper text is an attempt to pin it down so that we can treat it with the tools we've developed for print media, and doing something like printing out web-pages, binding them, stamping them on the cover with "AUTHORIZED EDITION" and putting them on a library shelf might force the information on that web page into the mold of print media, but it doesn't seem like the most thoughtful direction in which to head.
Rather than applying methods of critique to print media, we should invent and discover new methods of critique to apply to electronic media, and allow the application of those methods to improve our understanding of and conversation about both print and electronic texts. For example,. though databases like the MLA bibliography and JSTOR are useful tools for literary research, they by no means utilize the full assets of the connected environment of the Internet. Currently, we take journal articles, photo copy them, convert those images into large PDF files, where people may download them, print them out, and convert them back into something that looks very much like the original journal article. However, if we were to compose serious academic work for electronic media, the Internet could become much more than a temporary storage space and a means of distributing print. Articles themselves can become a site of discussion, and, through links and hypertext, connectivity between scholars and ideas. If we do so, we can make things like footnotes and end notes look as effective and efficient as the old time bike.
Friday, January 26, 2007
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Blogging Builds Discourse Communities
Unfortunately, I must admit that I have done little to educate myself on the topic blogging. Nevertheless, I can definitely identify the benefits of this technology as well as its downsides. During the first class, we discussed the reasons for blogging, and the types of discourse communities that might use such a genre. However, we did not discuss, in detail, using weblogs as an extension of the traditional classroom. However, I did find an interesting blog (http://edu.blogs.com/) that focues on using weblogs as a educational tool. Although I do not consider myself a master of web technology, I find the new technology that is exploding on the World Wide Web fascinating. My time is limited, so I have not had the opportunity to experiment with different kinds of web technology, such as chatting, instant messaging, or blogging. However, I find that they all, when used responsibly, can build discourse communities, when people lack the time and resources needed to engage one another face to face.
Unfortunately, I must admit that I have done little to educate myself on the topic blogging. Nevertheless, I can definitely identify the benefits of this technology as well as its downsides. During the first class, we discussed the reasons for blogging, and the types of discourse communities that might use such a genre. However, we did not discuss, in detail, using weblogs as an extension of the traditional classroom. However, I did find an interesting blog (http://edu.blogs.com/) that focues on using weblogs as a educational tool. Although I do not consider myself a master of web technology, I find the new technology that is exploding on the World Wide Web fascinating. My time is limited, so I have not had the opportunity to experiment with different kinds of web technology, such as chatting, instant messaging, or blogging. However, I find that they all, when used responsibly, can build discourse communities, when people lack the time and resources needed to engage one another face to face.
Struck by Omission
I was struck by the paucity of examples of web rhetoric in the readings, except for Zappen et al. Concepts are introduced, theories are brought forward, names are dropped, everything is extensively cited. Why not a web link? Where are those ad hominem attacks? And if we're going to talk about internet parody sites, let's show it.
If a goal is to develop our skills as writers for Electronic Media, reading prose models of the good, the bad and the ugly would seem essential.
And this remark of Warnick, on the nature of online discourse, confused me:
"Women who were resourceful, assertive, and active were dissociated from and valued over those who were under resourced, hesitant, or passive."
What does it mean to be both "dissociated from" and "valued over"?
Isn't that a good thing that active and resourceful women writers are encouraged? If passivity were valued, the critique might be that online discourse reinforces mansculine hegemony.
I can't think of any branch of rhetoric where hesitancy and passivity are valued.
DMCG
If a goal is to develop our skills as writers for Electronic Media, reading prose models of the good, the bad and the ugly would seem essential.
And this remark of Warnick, on the nature of online discourse, confused me:
"Women who were resourceful, assertive, and active were dissociated from and valued over those who were under resourced, hesitant, or passive."
What does it mean to be both "dissociated from" and "valued over"?
Isn't that a good thing that active and resourceful women writers are encouraged? If passivity were valued, the critique might be that online discourse reinforces mansculine hegemony.
I can't think of any branch of rhetoric where hesitancy and passivity are valued.
DMCG
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Theft of an Audience, Relating to Warnick
One line stood out to me over others in Warnick's article.
"A second factor complicating rhetorical critical study...is what happens to the notion of audience...In the first place, the identity of the audience as distince from the rhetor in many forms of CMC is quite difficult to place." ( 77)
It has been commented in another posting that this article is fairly outdated, given how quickly CMC advances and develops. Even so, this statement holds true today. How do we ever know if the person we want to receive our information will do so? In our blog here, we write under the assumption of writing to our classmates as the audience. However in the average blog, even those considered more reliable (i.e. slashdot.org for news and ign.com for gaming) are subject to the editors, or moderators, running them.
Farther down the page, Warnick goes on to state: "This is not to say that rhetorical critics cannot provide support for readings of texts. They can, but the support would have to come from probable readings of the texts they have studied..." (77)
It seems very interesting and I look forward to how or if this is issue is addressed.
"A second factor complicating rhetorical critical study...is what happens to the notion of audience...In the first place, the identity of the audience as distince from the rhetor in many forms of CMC is quite difficult to place." ( 77)
It has been commented in another posting that this article is fairly outdated, given how quickly CMC advances and develops. Even so, this statement holds true today. How do we ever know if the person we want to receive our information will do so? In our blog here, we write under the assumption of writing to our classmates as the audience. However in the average blog, even those considered more reliable (i.e. slashdot.org for news and ign.com for gaming) are subject to the editors, or moderators, running them.
Farther down the page, Warnick goes on to state: "This is not to say that rhetorical critics cannot provide support for readings of texts. They can, but the support would have to come from probable readings of the texts they have studied..." (77)
It seems very interesting and I look forward to how or if this is issue is addressed.
Monday, January 22, 2007
Let's not confuse speed with efficiency
The Licklider and Taylor article was a fascinating read when you consider how closely they predicted the future of "computer-facilitated communication." Obviously they were dealing with very real technologies that needed only time (and money) to fully blossom. This led to their impressive and accurate assumption about the future (unlike the effort of the original "Lost in Space" writers who placed their story in the distant year of 1997). It's hard to believe that the Internet I was cursing out in 1994 (I still preferred to wait in line for four hours to sign up for classes at the U of I Armory) had been conceptualized thirty years earlier. Where I think they missed the mark, however, was in their prediction of how the quality of communication (and life?) would be improved. When I ask my students what is so wonderful about computers and the Internet, their answers are eerily similar to these assertions.
Licklider and Taylor claim that "a communication system should make a positive contribution to the discovery and arousal of interests" (26). The accompanying cartoon depicts a rudimentary drawing of heart with initials inside it "cleaned up" into a beautiful picture before being sent to its intended. My kids think it's great that Microsoft Office has AutoCorrect; I find it to be the bane of my existence (at least as an English teacher). They don't know how to spell anymore, and proofreading is viewed as unnecessary and redundant (Didn't the computer already check for spelling and grammar errors?). Don't get me wrong. I don't turn the AutoCorrect off on my own computer, but I already know how to spell. I know when I've created a fragment, and when I have, it's almost always on purpose. I know the rules, so I'm allowed to break them for effect. Many kids assume Computer Knows Best and no longer think for themselves.
Licklider and Taylor make two more assertions late in the article with which most of my students concur. "First, life will be happier for the on-line individual because the people with whom one interacts most strongly will be selected more by commonality of interests and goals than by accidents of proximity" (40). Does that assume, gentlemen, that no members of this community will present themselves under false pretenses? If not, how does that factor affect the Happiness Scale. "Second, communication will be more effective and productive, and therefore more enjoyable" (40). What about when people miscommunicate via computer? How does this affect efficiency? I pose this question because I have seen far too many e-mails misinterpreted. Without non-verbal behaviors such as tone of voice and facial expressions, completely inoccuous statements can be read the wrong way. I would use some of my wife's e-mails as examples, but she won't release them to me (can you see my tongue-in-cheek?). In all seriousness, my wife is an infinitely kind and caring woman, but I've read some of her messages to others and immediately knew how they would be misinterpreted. Multiple follow-up e-mails would be sent asking and offering clarification. She has since declared on more than one occasion that "no important news, information, or concerns should be delivered via e-mail. It's just not personal." Nor, if you don't get it right the first time, is it effective or efficient.
But I digress. Maybe I should take off the gloves and quit fighting it. Maybe English instruction as we know it will go the way of the Dodo. Perhaps I should start taking some computer science courses. Do they even call it that anymore?
Licklider and Taylor claim that "a communication system should make a positive contribution to the discovery and arousal of interests" (26). The accompanying cartoon depicts a rudimentary drawing of heart with initials inside it "cleaned up" into a beautiful picture before being sent to its intended. My kids think it's great that Microsoft Office has AutoCorrect; I find it to be the bane of my existence (at least as an English teacher). They don't know how to spell anymore, and proofreading is viewed as unnecessary and redundant (Didn't the computer already check for spelling and grammar errors?). Don't get me wrong. I don't turn the AutoCorrect off on my own computer, but I already know how to spell. I know when I've created a fragment, and when I have, it's almost always on purpose. I know the rules, so I'm allowed to break them for effect. Many kids assume Computer Knows Best and no longer think for themselves.
Licklider and Taylor make two more assertions late in the article with which most of my students concur. "First, life will be happier for the on-line individual because the people with whom one interacts most strongly will be selected more by commonality of interests and goals than by accidents of proximity" (40). Does that assume, gentlemen, that no members of this community will present themselves under false pretenses? If not, how does that factor affect the Happiness Scale. "Second, communication will be more effective and productive, and therefore more enjoyable" (40). What about when people miscommunicate via computer? How does this affect efficiency? I pose this question because I have seen far too many e-mails misinterpreted. Without non-verbal behaviors such as tone of voice and facial expressions, completely inoccuous statements can be read the wrong way. I would use some of my wife's e-mails as examples, but she won't release them to me (can you see my tongue-in-cheek?). In all seriousness, my wife is an infinitely kind and caring woman, but I've read some of her messages to others and immediately knew how they would be misinterpreted. Multiple follow-up e-mails would be sent asking and offering clarification. She has since declared on more than one occasion that "no important news, information, or concerns should be delivered via e-mail. It's just not personal." Nor, if you don't get it right the first time, is it effective or efficient.
But I digress. Maybe I should take off the gloves and quit fighting it. Maybe English instruction as we know it will go the way of the Dodo. Perhaps I should start taking some computer science courses. Do they even call it that anymore?
Porter response
I like the narrative form of this essay. I wondered, however, if "the importance of social networks and personal help" (381) that Porter says contributed greatly to his writing development (the loss of which he somewhat laments) was merely a coincidence of the environment he found himself in at the time. For instance, we have all had classes/work situations where a communal atmosphere develops; then, we move into what we hope will be a similar situation, and it's not. This scenario may not make perfect sense, but I'm wondering if we have no choice but to move into a new way of "bonding," so to speak (computer mediated, of course). I guess I prefer to look at the up-side of Internet/computer-based writing, agreeing with his statement that "[Internet} writing [is] an action ...having a dramatic, even revolutionary impact on writing" (386). I did notice that his notes were rather "confessional," and perhaps ancillary to an academic article. This made me wonder if the academic writing genre is changing, slightly, to reflect our real life practices which include e-discourse. Maybe someone who knows much more about the academic writing style can comment on that. Thanks!
Identity and Anonymity
While reading through Gurak's observations on speed, reach, anonymity, and interactivity, I was shocked by her claim that "Online, people seem to have a greater expectation that they are communicating with a real person of that name" (37). Yet a few paragraphs later, she writes, "Today, we might see it as naive to expect anyone to be anything for certain in cyberspace. Cyberliteracy implies caution when considering identity" (38).
So which is it? It seems to me that most people use handles as opposed to their real name. Unless their online pseudonyms include some outright indication of their gender in their name, I try not to read their writing with any preconceived notions of who they might be. Therefore, I position myself in the latter camp that tries not to take any clues about one's true identity too seriously.
Do we have a responsibility to present a relatively truthful version of ourselves when interacting with others online? To me, it seems to depend on the forum in which one is posting. It seems to be a violation for people to go so far as to make fake MySpace and Facebook profiles in order to create specific, detailed identities. I would also feel violated by the "Joan" example described on page 38. But I don't mind if someone wants to create some sort of alter ego so long as they aren't doing it to win my sympathy or legitimate friendship.
So which is it? It seems to me that most people use handles as opposed to their real name. Unless their online pseudonyms include some outright indication of their gender in their name, I try not to read their writing with any preconceived notions of who they might be. Therefore, I position myself in the latter camp that tries not to take any clues about one's true identity too seriously.
Do we have a responsibility to present a relatively truthful version of ourselves when interacting with others online? To me, it seems to depend on the forum in which one is posting. It seems to be a violation for people to go so far as to make fake MySpace and Facebook profiles in order to create specific, detailed identities. I would also feel violated by the "Joan" example described on page 38. But I don't mind if someone wants to create some sort of alter ego so long as they aren't doing it to win my sympathy or legitimate friendship.
Thoughts on Warnick
There is a lot to comment on in our readings, but I think I’ll focus on Barbara Warnick. This 1998 article is quite outdated and on pg. 75 her complaints about web usability really irritated me until I realized this.
At the top of pg. 77 she asks some really fabulous and pertinent questions. I am most interested in the first one, “What sorts of roles are being enacted?” I think this may hit at a lot of the controversy we’ve seen lately. CMC has a degree of anonymity that makes people feel comfortable to not just be themselves and let it all hang out (confessional writing), but to experiment with other personas. In terms of authorship, you could say that everyone has a pseudonym. Who knew so many people were so eager to have one?
I’d also like to comment on her remarks about the way that CMC seems encourage conformity on page 81; this also has to do with roles being enacted. It may just be that this data is old and she didn’t think of this, but I have to wonder what the goals were of the groups that were examined. Did they just meet to casually chat? People love to feel that they are right, and to be able to anonymously “flame” those who disagree is a catharsis many will never find outside of a CMC environment. Backing up those who think the way you do and ganging up on those who do not is prohibited in our society in person, but it is an instinct (although perhaps that’s not the best word) that many people still feel, and are able to indulge in a computer mediated environment without social repercussions.
Contrarily, a blog like ours is intended for scholarly discussion, which (in my humble opinion) is only interesting when it includes well-founded disagreements and debates. I hope that Warnick wouldn’t find the same tendencies in our group as she did in those early groups.
It was my instinct to kid mrehill when he said one of his goals was to not make people cry. I wanted to say, “Why? Is that something you find yourself doing very often?” But it’s true that it is very easy to be harsh and overly critical when you’re not face-to-face with someone—or at least to come off that way when you can’t use body language to soften your words. I’m not an overly nice person in person; perhaps this is a goal I should consciously take up as well.
thoughts on blogging
Had to wait for "inspiration", so as to not embarrass myself, in case this ends up in the hands of an anthropologist, centuries from now, trying to discover clues to what our civilization was like. We may be in a sad state if we do better at electronic communication than face-to-face. I know that I rarely see my neighbors or have any communication with them. Most of us don't engage in back porch or fence-post discussions anymore. And in a technical writing class I took at this university, I was seated not more than 6 feet from the professor's desk - as were the other members of the class - and we were emailing documents back and forth. While this was much more efficient and environmentally-friendly than paper documents, red-pencilling, and rewrites, it had a somewhat impersonal ring to it, but I did like it, as it was really "cool" - unless the power went out, which it , fortunately, didn't.
Big Brother
Thinking critically about technology includes looking at its detrimental aspects as well as its benefits. The benefits of blogging are somewhat obvious. Communities with similar interests can share information and opinions across time and distance with people that they don't know and will never meet. Blogs provide yet another vehicle for exploring concepts and peronalities that might otherwise be unavailable for exploration.
While I wasn't interested in participating in blogging, I thought the whole concept was interesting and certainly harmless until a few months ago. I began hearing and reading news reports of how publishing information on the Internet was affecting people. I first became aware of potential problems when a fellow TA said he looked all of his students up on My Space and Facebook before the semester even began. What right does an instructor have to delve into matters that have nothing to do with coursework? Why would anyone want to know such information about students, and why would anyone take the time to look students up when there is so much prep work that needs to be done that is connected with actually teaching the course?
Still, I wasn't very concerned. But then the news reports started coming out. Parents were looking up their college student's dorm roommates on these sites and requesting room changes if the assigned roommate didn't fit their ideal. According to one news report, some college and university admissions agents were checking these sites out. Employers and potential credit providers were looking at information published on the Web on various sites. Even lawyers were using them to discredit witnesses.
Do the majority of those mentioned above check Web sites? Possibly not. But it takes only one person in a single situation finding out the wrong information to cause you hassles, inconveniences, disappointments, and hardships. In the right circumstances, it could destroy your life.
I am even more dismayed after last week's class. I knew that law enforcement agencies could track down people carrying out nepharious activities using pseudonyms, but I didn't realize that others could also do so. I also thought that once something was deleted, it was gone. Now that I know that neither of those is true, I am even more reluctant to say anything that anyone in a power position might take issue with. It doesn't matter whether using the information is legal or not, particularly in employment situations. No one in his or her right mind would ever sue an employer if he or she ever wanted to work anywhere again.
Yes, I believe many of the technologies we hail can be used against us. We need to be on guard against intrusion into our thoughts, opinions, and personal lives.
While I wasn't interested in participating in blogging, I thought the whole concept was interesting and certainly harmless until a few months ago. I began hearing and reading news reports of how publishing information on the Internet was affecting people. I first became aware of potential problems when a fellow TA said he looked all of his students up on My Space and Facebook before the semester even began. What right does an instructor have to delve into matters that have nothing to do with coursework? Why would anyone want to know such information about students, and why would anyone take the time to look students up when there is so much prep work that needs to be done that is connected with actually teaching the course?
Still, I wasn't very concerned. But then the news reports started coming out. Parents were looking up their college student's dorm roommates on these sites and requesting room changes if the assigned roommate didn't fit their ideal. According to one news report, some college and university admissions agents were checking these sites out. Employers and potential credit providers were looking at information published on the Web on various sites. Even lawyers were using them to discredit witnesses.
Do the majority of those mentioned above check Web sites? Possibly not. But it takes only one person in a single situation finding out the wrong information to cause you hassles, inconveniences, disappointments, and hardships. In the right circumstances, it could destroy your life.
I am even more dismayed after last week's class. I knew that law enforcement agencies could track down people carrying out nepharious activities using pseudonyms, but I didn't realize that others could also do so. I also thought that once something was deleted, it was gone. Now that I know that neither of those is true, I am even more reluctant to say anything that anyone in a power position might take issue with. It doesn't matter whether using the information is legal or not, particularly in employment situations. No one in his or her right mind would ever sue an employer if he or she ever wanted to work anywhere again.
Yes, I believe many of the technologies we hail can be used against us. We need to be on guard against intrusion into our thoughts, opinions, and personal lives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)