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.