Wikipedia Project Analytic Reflection

    While working on the Wikipedia page, I realized a few things. Firstly, editing and creating a Wikipedia page requires more attention to detail and caution than I had originally envisioned. Secondly, working in a ‘sandbox’ space that is constantly updated and changed presented new challenge. For instance, at one point, I went to insert a link to author Ridolfo at the beginning of the Public Sphere Writing and Audience section, only to find that it had been removed. It was very interesting for me to see Rhetorical Velocity in action, particularly, I noticed when I was reading through some of the other sections as we were instructed to do in class that several sentences and sections had to be changed once read through the lens of another student, as they were interpreted differently by the proto-audience (us). It was also challenging, in a larger context, to keep in mind the future audience of this page.

 While us students, who are (or should be by now!) experts at this particular subject and all the sub-theories contained within, can look at this page and not need further explanation on the concept of, say, exigence, an ordinary person who is working their way through Wikipedia for any reason won’t immediately understand the concepts. Like, Ridolfo and Rife state, I had to think about my potential audience and the ways that the information we have presented can be interpreted.

  Also, I was struck by just how many things needed references, or even links to other pages. My individual task was to go through the article and make sure that the internal and external links were formatted correctly, and that things that should be linked (like names of theorists, central ideas, and entities such as Facebook and National Geographic) were linked properly. I thought of Weibe’s essay on plagiarism, and how even the misattribution of a quote or idea can be considered a violation of ethics. With that in mind, I think the whole class was striving to make sure that we did not violate Wikipedia’s Community Guidelines. The most difficult part of this task was learning to do my edits section by section, as I tend to focus too much on the work as a whole. More than once, my edits were stymied by an ‘edit conflict’, meaning I had to go back and try and merge the edits, which can be pretty grueling.

Short Assignment # 5

Part One:

Marshall McLuhan vs. Michelle Citron

Structure of article:

Both articles are outlined in a similar fashion: there is a short introduction followed by an examination of the early life and career of both subjects, followed by the listing and description of major works created by McLuhan and Citron. The difference that is most visible here is the level of detail afforded to certain subjects.

In the McLuhan article, his early life is painted in detail, including tidbits about McLuhan’s religious journey. Citron’s sections are less detailed- her date of birth is not mentioned, nor any snippets of her personal life outside of her academic and professional career.

Kinds of Information contained:

In the McLuhan article, his theories and key concepts that he coined are discussed at length. There is even information included about dissenting opinions. In addition, there is a wealth of ‘trivia’ information woven throughout the McLuhan article, such as his appearance in the film Annie Hall.

In contrast, the Citron article is more factual, with a basic summation of her filmography and multimedia works.

Kinds of information linked to:

The Citron article links to other Wikipedia pages about locations and universities. The McLuhan article does this as well, but also adds links to information about other theorists, terms, and pages for the works of McLuhan.

References:

The references for the Citron article are academic in nature and focused on film studies, specifically feminist film studies.

Tone of Article:

This is where I found the most stark differences between the two articles: the McLuhan article was written with a sense of care and reverence, and includes a level of detail that goes beyond basic information. In contrast, the Citron article is more straightforward and less colorfully detailed.

Part Two:

Featured Article: An Experiment on a Bird in the Air Pump

This featured article, on an 18^th century painting titled: An Experiment on a Bird in the Air Pump, finds it’s strength in the comprehensiveness of information presented. The author was very detailed and thorough when it came to information surrounding this painting and it’s creation. However, on the other side, the author suffers from going off topic and a confusing ordering of information. It would have been better to have a section about the artist, who’s information is spread out throughout the article in haphazard order, followed by information about the painting itself, with subsections for style and technique, and a separate section for the topic of the painting and air pumps in the 18^th century, which the Wikipedia article author clearly found fascinating.

Short Assignment # 5 Analytic Reflection

When composing a Wikipedia article, I've noticed that while the most important factor is relevant information, a secondary and maybe equally important factor is the organization of that information. While I was examining the McLuhan and Citron biographies, I noticed that while there seemed to be an overwhelming amount of information about Marshall McLuhan, it was well organized and easy to navigate, making the McLuhan article seem like the ‘better’ article in comparison to Michelle Citron’s succinct biography. Citron’s biography was a good summary of her overall works, but it did not afford many opportunities for further research, unlike the McLuhan article, which included links to his works, discussion of his theories, and a neat outline of his more prominent key terms. I realize that the difference between these two articles arises from the difference in position the two subjects hold in the public eye. Marshall McLuhan is a well known theorist and academic figure, anybody who studies media theory or anything related to that will have heard of him. He has even appeared in a Woody Allen film. In contrast, I have never heard of Michelle Citron or her work, which contributes to the reason her biography is sparser than McLuhan’s. Information about Citron is undoubtedly harder to find, as she has not yet been the subject of biographies, nor has she had foundations formed after her, and she is not considered the ‘father’ of a school of theory like McLuhan is. I feel like this assignment is particularly relevant towards my group’s assigned section, which is major theories of public sphere writing. It will be difficult, but not impossible, for us to separate neutral facts from the battleground of separate schools of thought and the reverence paid to certain theorists.

Discussion Post 11/6/14

In Wiebe's essay 'Plagiarism and Promiscuity', he discusses the various types (or degrees) of plagiarism that have arisen in the digital age. Due to the rise of the internet, instances of student plagiarism have become more and more abundant. But what constitutes plagiarism? According to Wiebe, while many people still subscribe to the notion that plagiarism is the act of using someone else's words as your own without accreditation, other kinds of plagiarism, like patchwriting, collaborative writing, and idea-borrowing, are also worthy of scrutiny.
In Ridolfo's case study of rhetorical velocity, the concept of ownership is also brought up.
In our multimodal world, it has become the norm to assume that any content you create can and will be picked up and interpreted or even reused in ways that you did not imagine. This concept of rhetorical velocity calls for a consciousness of the 21st centuries attitude towards copyright law and 'fair use'. The real question has developed, not as to whether plagiarism is right or wrong, but as to what constitutes plagiarism in this decade?
Debates about what makes up the 'creative commons' and where the line from referencing a work becomes outright stealing are blurred by different voices and different notions about what constitutes 'stealing'. As technology progresses, notions about plagiarism and 'idea-stealing' will surely morph and change, just as they have done in the last two decades alone.

Short Assignment 4: Wikipedia Fact Check

Wikipedia Fact Check: The Walt Disney Company

Did you know that on this day in 1923, Roy and Walt Disney founded The Disney Brothers Cartoon Studio, which would eventually become the Walt Disney Company?

·                What kinds of sources do the article you are assessing use? 

   The types of sources include news articles by TIME, The New York Times, and other respected news organizations, Disney’s own financial records, industry related reports, and the archived web pages of several organizations, including the Catholic League.

·                Are any of those sources unreliable or not well-respected? Why do you think so? Are there any you are unsure of? Why? 

I am unsure of some of the news articles, because news can be biased, especially entertainment news, and in addition, the Walt Disney Corporation has become ‘Hollywood Legend’, which could lead to some exaggeration.

·                Check five individual facts in the article against the sources. Are the facts reported correctly in Wikipedia? If not, what is incorrectly reported? 

The facts are reported correctly.

·                Do you think the information in this article is generally reliable based on your analysis of the sources? Why or why not? 

I think it is generally reliable, since the sources are reliable and the article is styled like a timeline, and doesn’t contain anything sensational, apart from the amount of money that Disney earns annually (!).

·                Do you think the information is reliable based on the level of detail? Why or why not? 

Yes, because the level of detail includes over 80 sources, and information for further reading.

Analysis

In Lazere’s ‘Reading And Writing for Civic Literacy’, he states: “The word bias is an ambiguous one; it is usually, but not necessarily, used with a negative connotation. Bias can simply mean a particular subjective viewpoint….”

It was through this lens that I examined the sources of my selected Wikipedia article, especially in light of the standing that Walt Disney holds in the American Public’s hearts and minds. I wanted to make sure that the chronology of the growth of The Walt Disney Company was not misrepresented by an overzealous fan.

Fortunately, since the company has been in the public eye since the early 20^th century, there is a wealth of factual public records that can be used to verifiy the reliability of this article.

Class on Blog 10/14

According to Corbett and Eberly, Spectator Culture affects our ability to argue well in the public sphere because citizens are no longer active participants, but viewers or receivers of public discourse. When arguments are mediated through blogs, however, it gives citizens the ability to participate in public discourse. There are downsides to this, like the oversimplification of complex issues and the growth of ‘social media activism’, which has been praised for raising awareness, but criticized for failing to take action or create visible change. (Remember the Stop Kony’ fiasco?)

In an example of citizen criticism gone wrong, Bouie’s “Criminal Justice Racism”

demonstrates how the way a conversation is framed can effect how it is interpreted.

In this particular case, well meaning change-seekers attempted to use statistics to illustrate the disproportionate rate of minorities incarcerated, as part of the argument for reform. What went wrong can be boiled down to internalized racism and a misguided use of statistics.

Discussion Post

In Carolyn Handa's excerpts from Multimediated Rhetoric, she draws attention to the way the digital landscape of the modern age is used as a rhetorical tool. Handa argues that it is not only the content that can be found online that should be analyzed, but also the stylistic details of how information is presented online.
Any layperson can tell the difference between, say, Facebook, with it's color and personalization, and a more stark website like Wikipedia.
Handa also discusses how certain websites use rhetorical theories like Kairos and ethos, pathos, and logos in all aspects of their design, creating something tangible.
 In a similar fashion, Killingsworth discusses in 'place' how a website functions as a physical place, that can be visited and revisited. In a way, a digital 'place' can become a utopia, as it can be rendered to a point of virtual rhetorical perfection that is impossible for a physical place to obtain.
While we were working on our Sci/Tech blogs, we discussed how the layout and design might need to be changed in order to appeal to our audience. In a larger sense, how might other online platforms need to be changed to appeal to specific rhetorical needs?