Post 9

In “From Pencils to Pixels” Dennis Baron Argues that although technology has advanced dramatically in recent decades, this increase in innovation does not necessarily indicate that there will be an equally dramatic change in literacy.  In the previous articles that we have read regarding literacy, authors suggest that advances in technology have made an equally big impression on (especially children’s) ability to learn various types of literacy.  I agree that Baron shrugs a bit at technology in this article.  One way that he does this is by looking at past examples of revolutionary steps in literacy.  For example, Baron discusses the church and its role in allowing or prohibiting the ability of the people to read and write.  However, I think that he reaffirms his point in another way.  Baron discusses the pencil as a technology in one section of his article.  He explains here that when people began to write things with the pencil, the gap between spoken language and written language widened.  Even in classes today, the notes or essays we write contain completely different language and structure than our spoken words.  He writes that “human witnesses are interactive” in contrast to written language, which is not.  By pointing out these basic facts about written language, Baron establishes that even if technology provides a new way to record literacy, it will have the same pitfalls as previous methods of writing.

Post 8

Reading “The Future of Literacy” has confirmed for me a few trends in technology that I have seen increasingly in schools recently.  For me personally, in school technology always outweighed my computer usage at home.  My family only recently upgraded to high speed internet from dial up so I didn’t have much access to the internet unless I was at a friend’s house or at school.  However, my elementary school involved us heavily in technology from kindergarten.  I remember learning to type as before I learned how to write in cursive.  In fact, my school system taught typing throughout elementary, middle and high school as a required class.  In addition to general computer information, in elementary school, we were also taught computer literacy through programming a type of robot that required coding.  While I feel that I learned most of my technical literacy at school, I believe that the most important factor that contributed to my visual literacy was the environment at home.  My parents stressed reading at a very young age.  I read every day with my parents until I was able to read on my own.  My parents also expanded my visual literacy by including it outside of our home as well.  On vacations when I was younger we would generally go to the beach or an amusement park, but no matter where we went there would be a trip to a museum or historical landmark at some point.  I consider myself very lucky to have had the advantage of learning literacy both at school and at home.

Post 7

In “Sponsors of Literacy” Deborah Brandt describes those who teach others how to become literate are more like sponsors than teachers.  Brandt claims that like the sponsors on TV or in magazines, those who teach literacy always stand to gain something from sharing their expertise.  Similarly, Brandt also states that many times, this relationship can be mutually beneficial for both sponsor and student.  To support these claims, Brandt uses teachers as one example of a sponsor.  Although a teacher may sponsor a student’s literacy to help the student, the teacher is also benefiting from the student’s knowledge through employment.  Another example Brandt gives in the school system involves a school’s sponsorship of literacy.  Schools often promote literacy because it generally translates to higher standardized test scores, which earn a school more money.  While in both of these examples the sponsor profits financially, Brandt does note that sponsors can be motivated by a desire to see others succeed as well. 

Just as sponsors provide literacy for their own benefit, Brandt also discusses how some people in positions of power in churches or governments can benefit from preventing literacy.  For example, a government may prevent its citizens from learning to read and write in order to keep them from being able to read about the freedoms that other nations enjoy. 

In my experience some sponsors of literacy profit more than others.  For example, my parents may have taught me to read so that I could become independent, while teachers may have been more interested in monetary gain.  I think the most obvious sign of the educational system’s benefit in sponsoring literacy is through standardized tests. I certainly did not receive as much support from the school in high school as those who struggled to read because I would be able to achieve on standardized tests.

The Effects of Error in Wikipedia

           In academia, Wikipedia has often been criticized for being too changeable, inaccurate or shallow with respect to its articles (Purdy).  However, the academic practice of peer reviewing plays a large part in the processes required to edit or add an article in Wikipedia.  Furthermore, we can see that changeability often keeps information up to date, inaccuracies are thoroughly explored by experts, and articles are constantly being expanded to give readers a deeper understanding of a topic.  With this in mind, we can see that Wikipedia gives us the chance to reassess the meaning and impact of error by becoming actively involved in a different kind of academic community.

            Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, provides users with a chance to explore and actively share information on nearly any topic.  Everyday, more articles are being added, while existing articles are being corrected.  By looking beyond the default “read page” the processes that allow for this constant change are visible and accessible to everyone.  Editing is the most common way to add to the compendium of knowledge.  In order to provide editors contact with one another, Wikipedia provides a “talk page” which is more or less a forum for people who are interested and knowledgeable in the topic of the article.  In this “talk page”, editors and interested parties can discuss what needs to be added to an article, why something was deleted, why sources are relevant and more.  This type of public acknowledgement of changes lends authority to people who are truly interested in a subject.  Furthermore this “talk page” often leads to editing that improves an article.  All edits can be seen on the “edit page” of an article.  This page shows every change that has occurred on a topic, who made the change and when it was changed.  The “edit” and “talk” pages of an article serve as a sort of peer review which strengthen the credibility of the information on a specific topic.  In addition to this peer reviewing, Wikipedia requires articles to have appropriate and reliable sourcing.  If an article is not sourced or sourced reliably, then it may be removed from Wikipedia entirely.  Although most of us use Wikipedia regularly, these editing processes usually go unnoticed, despite the fact that they are responsible for providing the credible information on which we rely.

            With the processes and abilities of a Wikipedia page in mind, we can begin to see that the misconceptions held by many academics are not always rooted in reality.  In Joseph M. Williams’ “The Phenomenology of Error” we can see that in all forms of academic writing, error is simply a construct built over many years but based on arbitrary rules.  According to Williams, “we are all locating error in very different places.” This, he asserts, is the source of our problems with error.  For example, an error in grammar does not always reflect an error in content.  In fact, “when we read for typos,” Williams claims, “…content becomes virtually inaccessible” (Williams).  With this in mind, we must decide what we consider to be an error before approaching a piece of writing.  Furthermore, if an error goes unnoticed we can assume that it is not an error at all.  Certainly, a paper with a typo can be equally as informative as one without as long as the misspelling doesn’t hinder the intended meaning.  Williams uses his article itself as an example by including deliberate grammatical errors (Williams).  His meaning and purpose come across clearly despite the errors—which go largely unnoticed. 

As a result of the ideas presented in this reading we should consider that not all errors indicate that a piece of writing is unreliable, including writing on Wikipedia.  “The Phenomenology of Error” can provide us with a larger understanding of the meaning of error.  For example, as I previously described, academia frequently points out that, “articles [on Wikipedia] can display incorrect information” (Purdy).  However, Williams reminds us that if we look for error we will find it (Williams).  Thus, by excluding Wikipedia as a source altogether, we can lose a valuable source of correct information.  Rather, we should recognize that Wikipedia could help us understand error by actively allowing us to correct it.  By taking advantage of the “edit” and “talk” pages we can create a massive peer review community that can improve everyone’s knowledge of a topic.  Finding an error in an article does not mark it as unreliable, it simply provides room for improvement and growth.

            Another criticism of Wikipedia that I touched on earlier was its changeable nature.  However, in my experience with Wikipedia, I feel that changeability contributed to making articles more reliable.  For example, it is obvious that our world is constantly changing.  When changes occur, editors on Wikipedia can alter articles instantly to reflect current events.  I noticed this in my article selection for our own Wikipedia edits.  In my case, the number of children who were affected by a Canadian Bill was brought into question.   The editors of the article discussed on the talk page how the number was inaccurate and determined that a source was outdated.  This type of continuous interaction with other editors and public sources is not possible in academic journals or standard encyclopedias.  In this case (and I suspect many others) Wikipedia’s changeability is a positive rather than a negative.  Additionally, I discussed previously that many people feel that Wikipedia’s articles are too shallow and provide only a simple overview of a topic (Purdy).   While many articles are very brief, others go into incredible detail.  Furthermore, the sourcing on Wikipedia is generally closely patrolled and can provide readers with sources beyond the article page.  The talk page can also provide additional sources for information from experts.  Thus, although Wikipedia is like all other encyclopedias in respect to the general overview of its content, our search for information does not need to end with the article itself (Purdy).  Wikipedia is, in this respect, superior to other sources and encyclopedias because of its ability to provide information beyond the superficial “read” page.

            Wikipedia has certainly suffered its fair share of criticism since becoming a popular source for information online.  However, after becoming a part of the editing community, I feel that Wikipedia can contribute largely to our understanding of error.  Furthermore, I now see that an article’s “read” page is only the beginning when I am looking for information. Rather than relying on a completely independent search for information, I believe that we can count on Wikipedia for both sourcing and large supporting community.

Bibliography

Purdy, James P. "Wikipedia Is Good for You!?" Writing Spaces. Vol. 1. Parlor. 205-24.Writing Spaces. Web. 27 Mar. 2012.

Wiliams, Joseph M. "The Phenomenology of Error." College Composition and Communication 32.2 (1981): 152-68. JSTOR. National Council of Teachers of English. Web. 29 Mar. 2012.

Post 6

Exigence

• Definition:  Exigence is basically the point of a piece of writing.  It is the problem and solution and the reason why they both exist in one written body.
• Example:  An essay about the possible solutions to global warming.  The author is offering solutions in this piece of writing but by doing so he or she also assesses the problem that requires these solutions.  Furthermore, the author explains why a problem needs a solution and why it is relevant at a certain time.

Rhetor

• Definition:  The writer or writers of a written body as they portray themselves to an audience.  The rhetors can also be the audience of a work.   
• Example:  A businessman in a community may help clean up a local park on a regular basis as a service.  As a rhetor, he can portray himself as a businessman or a janitor.

Audience

• Definition:  Audience is the person or group of people who reads a written body.  The audience can also be the group the author imagines would read his or her work.  The audience may also take on roles in order to accommodate the aim of the writer.
• Example:  An English teacher may enjoy reading novels for leisure as a part of one audience, but as another audience he or she takes a more critical approach when reading a student’s essay.

Constraints

• Definition:  Constraints are the limitations within which an author must write. 
• Example:  If an author is hired to write a piece for children, he or she is constrained by the limited knowledge of the readers and language that readers will appreciate.

Post 5

Lamott's central argument in "Shitty First Drafts" is that the first draft is supposed to be terrible.  Universally, all writers experience the agony of beginning a paper and being terrified that it will be terrible.  However, Lamott also provides a ray of hope for writers who experience this type of terror at the beginning of the writing process by explaining that from a first draft, a second or third will emerge that is far and away better than the first.  The creative process that takes place on Wikipedia very much supports Lamott's argument.  On Wikipedia, writers begin and submit first drafts of alterations to a subject.  Then other writers come and change that information to improve and clarify it.  If an editor makes a change to the work then the second draft may include more pertinent data or fewer inaccuracies.  Furthermore, the author of the original post can often learn something new from the process.  For example, he or she may learn new information about the topic that is being discussed while also learning about formatting on Wikipedia.  I think that Lamott would fully support this creative process because it allows for constant improvement, which is the goal of multiple drafts.  Even when something is deleted off of a post on Wikipedia, the author should consider it a first draft and continue to try to improve and alter until the final product is worthy of being kept on the page.

Post 4

In “All Writing is Autobiography” Donald Murray wants readers to reconsider a construct that is present in many writing courses.  This construct involves the idea that writing should be impersonal.  Also, Murray discusses the concept that “we become what we write.”  This is the main idea of the article.  Two main points are crucial to explaining this.  First, a writer will always include autobiographical elements in his or her writing.  Second, whatever the author writes becomes true because it is written.  “We make our own history, our own legends, our own knowledge,” Murray explains, “ by writing our own knowledge by writing our autobiography.”  This concept is very important to writers in an introductory class to understand.  If we always try to stay objective in our writing, then we will not grow as people or as authors.

Post 3

James Porter’s Intertextuality and the Discourse Community was a very interesting look at plagiarism in our culture.  I have previously heard arguments that took a strong and vocal stance against plagiarism of any kind and any definition.  However, according to Porter, the definition of plagiarism isn’t as simple as it’s made out to be.  This idea was also discussed in a previous article we read that cited group work as an example of where the concept of individual idea and plagiarism were blurred.  Porter says that imagining writing as “individual, isolated or heroic” restricts and harms the creative process.  It staunches ideas by forcing them to be the result of eliminating previously used data rather than building on those ideas.  The problems caused by this are far reaching.  For example, one definition of plagiarism would hold that using another person’s ideas for any purpose would be a violation of their intellectual property.  However, if we are not allowed to build on what has been done before us then how can we grow.  Similarly, some ideas are best expressed by the original author.  Why should paraphrasing be banned if the author himself wrote the ideas for the public?  The concept of plagiarism is too far flung to accurately punish.  If all work based on another’s ideas is plagiarism, then by acknowledging our own culture in writing, we would be unable to grow as a community.