Wikipedia talk:Education program archive/Ohio University/Writing and Rhetoric II, Writing in Wikipedia (2014 S2)

This is our course "talk" page, which we'll use to discuss course readings. For each reading, I'll make a new section with the title and author, as well as a prompt or question for your response. You are expected to read everyone's response, so check back on this page if you complete this assignment early. Also, whenever you write out a reading response, be sure to give it a title using the BOLD command and sign your post using four tildes while logged in. I'm looking forward to our discussions. Matthewvetter (talk) 19:50, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Stereotypes of Appalachia Obscure a Diverse Picture

Read "Stereotypes of Appalachia Obscure a Diverse Picture," then respond to the following in at least 300 words. What are some of the stereotypes mentioned in this article? What are some other stereotypes in film, tv, and popular culture you've been exposed to? How do these stereotypes mis/represent Appalachian people and culture? Be sure to sign your response with 4 tildes and hit "Save Page" to publish. Matthewvetter (talk) 19:57, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

In "Stereotypes of Appalachia Obscure a Diverse Picture," Sarah Baird alludes to a number of negative opinions about the people and culture of this region. Historically, stereotypes of poverty, ignorance and backwardness have been very common among responses to Appalachia. However, Baird also takes on a less common stereotype, that of racial and ethnic homogeneity. Contrary to what most people assume, the people of Appalachia are actually very diverse. This was a new idea for me reading this article, as I had also been somewhat guilty of this assumption. I really enjoyed reading this piece because it got me thinking about how a region can be written off or generalized in ways that often hide the reality. Matthewvetter (talk) 20:47, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The article itself mentions a few Appalachian stereotypes, such as being white, uneducated, poverty, rural, and backward, having a coal-mining past, and heavily using drugs and alcohol, but predominantly serves to inform the reader of the diversity present in the area. As the article mentions, even the dictionary defined Appalachians as mountain whites until recently, which is actually not the reality of the area. The Appalachian area has a 10% African American population, a 4% Latino population steadily rising, among many other ethnicities. Examples of the "Affrilachia" influence, specifically, are banjo bluegrass music and many types of cuisine typically associated with the area. In film, tv, and popular culture, Appalachian peoples' misrepresentations range from illiterate, "trailer trash" and backward to inbred, deformed, and sociopathic. The Appalachian area has such as diverse past and is such a wide-spanning area that it's a wonder that these stereotypes exist today. I was surprised the video in class didn't include the recent series of films "The Hills Have Eyes," which was what immediately came to mind for horrible misrepresentations of Appalachian people. On a lesser scale, here at OU, there is a distinction constantly perpetuated by those affiliated with the university and those who live in Athens proper which aims to reinforce that they do not seek to be associated with the people from nearby areas. I've noticed a generalization of people, considered to be from the "backwoods" of West Virginia and Ohio, permeating OU -- stereotypes range from uneducated, meth users to trashy, teenage parents.Emgiunta (talk) 21:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC)emgiunta

The main stereotype of the inhabitants of Appalachia is that they are poor, backwards and white. To underscore just how commonplace these stereotypes actually are, the library of congress officially referred to Appalachian people as “Mountain Whites” until 2005. The article also mentions that, because of this perceived lack of diversity in Appalachia, racism is commonplace. Further, the article discusses how the geographic nature of Appalachia, with it’s steep mountains and hills, has isolated the people who live there, forcing them into tight knit communities that may develop their own unique culture and way of life. This isolation has also made it very difficult to provide adequate health care and job opportunities. The article does mention that the people of Appalachia may not be inherently racist, they just fear that which is unfamiliar. This fear of the unknown could assumedly stem from the geographic isolation of the region.

I believe that the core stereotypes of Appalachian people, many of which were touched on in the article, can stem from their isolation into small communities tucked away in hills and mountains. Because of this geographic isolation many outsiders do not know or understand the people who live in Appalachia. From an outside perspective a person could easily conclude that these people are disconnected from modern, civilized humans, which leaves the mind to assume all sorts of behaviors are common, such as incest, when in actuality that is likely not the case.Mkak8 (talk) 20:53, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

In the article “Stereo types Of Appalachia Obscure A Diverse Picture” it is stated that the main stereotypes are “poor, backward, and white”. These stereotypes are misrepresented because they are the majority but not everyone in Appalachia. The people of Appalachia have been working to prove their stereotypes wrong and spread the word that they are a diverse group and are working towards fixing their areas of poverty.My whole life I have been exposed to stereotypes, I grew up reading magazines that would generalize people into certain groups. This way of separating people like by calling them an athlete, social butterfly, punk, ect. was just the start of my younger years of stereotyping. I can look around and see them all around me in movies or even TV shows, even my everyday life back in high school filled with “cliques”. They influence our every day and help or rather hurt us to make quick judgements.Alliemarie101 (talk) 21:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The Stigma of an Appalachian is that they are all white, inbreeded hillbillies that could be racist. They live in the middle of nowhere and are uneducated. In the movies they are portrayed as bad hygiene, with horrible teeth. Body wise they are either fat or skinny never a healthy weight. The list of a stereotypical could go on and on. In reality this is a horrible interpolation. Appalachians make up basically the whole middle of the east coast stretching from top to bottom. In fact many of them are well educated and skilled workers. It just happens to be that generations of family’s have stayed in this area, an area that once had an economic boom and then was left to wither and die after the resources became empty or obsolete. Many workers stayed in this area because of money, family and the skill they had perfected was no longer needed and to learn a new skill would take time and money that they did not have. The Appalachian area is depicted as a white raced area when in fact it is multiracial area. Many Slaves both free and not free moved to this area to escape slavery and bigotry. Making this area almost a 50/50 blend.Malcolm Pullom (talk) 20:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

A lot of the stereotypes mentioned in the article are the "typical" ones that come to mind of most people. The article talked about people being dirty and not bathing, chain smoking cigarettes, and people dressing up in camouflage and Carhartts. There were also some positive stereotypes mentioned, like how Appalachia people are very protective and supportive of their families and friends. Some other stereotypes that may or may not have been mentioned in the article but that I have been exposed to through popular media include Appalachia people living in trailers, being poor, fishing and hunting, incest, being unintelligent, and being racist and barbarian.People from Appalachia also tend to be characterized as lazy and people who need help from others or the government in order to get by or get what they need to survive. These stereotypes misrepresent Appalachian people simply because a lot of them are untrue, and if they are true they only occur in very small areas. Most people living the Appalachia area do not have a lot of money to spend on things outside of the materials needed to survive. They become creative and find ways to help support themselves and sometimes that is looked down upon by people who have the means (money) to get by. ZackaryMullikin (talk) 20:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The mainstream media portrays Appalachians as white, poverty stricken, and uncivilized, undereducated group of people living in the mountains. As far as their appearance goes, they usually are weathered, bad teeth, dirty clothes, and don’t care much about how they look. They have their own was of talking and their own way of living off the land. Many people living in Appalachia are shown living in poor conditions. I have seen the media reference Appalachia as a home to many drug addicts and hub for major drug trafficking. There is said to be little diversity and extreme racism in the mountains. Because there is less opportunity there is more ignorance.

The truth is Appalachia has a culture. The media shows us the negative sides of the ways of living. Mountain people are and should be a proud group of individuals. They come from all over the world. I always seen and thought that this part of the country as predominately white, but after reading this article I was surprised to know that minorities make up for nearly half of the population. This part of the country also was more accepting of the African American integration then I expected. Appalachians are more accepting and more diverse then the media gives it credit for.Jp302408 (talk) 20:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The article listed many stereotypes that are associated with the Appalachian region. Some of the stereotypes included: smoking, filth, and poverty. The biggest stereotype that the article focused on was race. The article discussed how the area was a mixture of immigrants from different places all over the world, but the region was depicted as, “poor, backward, and white”. The author gave an example of an African-American, raised in Kentucky who the author claimed was one of the few people to be a role model for African-Americans, in his region. The author went on to provide statistics of how the minority population was around 42% of the entire region. Racism was talked in the article too. Appalachia is commonly thought of as being prejudice against minorities. The article gave arguments both for and against the argument. One example told a specific example of Latin-American police officers, while another talked about how school segregation was rocky at first and then were well blended together. Other stereotypes portrayed in media depict Appalachians as uneducated. This of course is arguable with many respected universities in the region. Of course locals attend these schools. Another stereotype media portrays is Appalachians being inbred. Of course this is a stereotype, not all of the region only breeds with family.ATBeach (talk) 20:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

There are several stereotypes addressed in this article. The main point this article makes is the stereotype that all the people that live in appalachia are white. This is the main argument the article tries to talk about. It states several historical facts that null this stereotype such as the slave trade and the fact that the hispanic population in appalachia has increased around 240 percent in the last 20 years. Appalachia is considered to be a melting pot according to the article and it spans further back then the revolutionary war. It also quickly touches on the stereotypes of all appalachia people being backwards. Although the article stays on the basis of race in appalachia this is also a major stereotype of the people that live in this region. The article states that people might think of appalachians being backwards because of the isolationism that they oppose on themselves and this also leads to the problems they face such as poor healthcare. Some people might think that they are backwards simply because they are just out in the middle of nowhere not really in society which is a false view. Other stereotypes that the media portrays of appalachians is that they are uneducated. We can see in several ways how the media depicts this whether its through television shows that portray the these people as less intelligent or through movies that show this. In just society and talking to people I have also heard stereotypes that they are drug users or they are just a different breed of person. These stereotypes often misrepresent appalachian people because it generalizes them as a whole some people might fit one stereotype, but the generalization is the problem because in my own experiences I have seen appalachians that are well educated and I haven't seen many that I would consider to be on drugs. Stereotypes bring a negative view on anyone that they are about and we need to learn as a society that media loves to generalize people and not all these statements are not true of the people that they are about. MattSchimm (talk) 20:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The biggest stereotype mentioned in the article was that people that live in Appalachia are "poor, backward, and white." In the article it talks about how about 42% of the people that have moved into Appalachia are African-American residents. This shows that the stereotype of the area is false. Another way this stereotype is disproved in the article is when it talks about how before the revolutionary war, many Native American tribes, such as the Cherokee's and the Shawnee's, were the first people to inhabit the area. A big stereotype that is really common in the Athens area is the idea of a "townie," or someone who was originally from Athens or the surrounding towns. Most students at OU think that townies are uneducated or don't really understand the life of the college kids that live here. I have personally found this stereotype to be misleading because my boyfriend is technically a townie, however, he has a degree in chemistry. His sister just received her master's degree from George Washington University in Washington DC. My boyfriend and his sister both are examples of how the stereotype of a townie is not always the case. Allyleah817 (talk) 21:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Some of the stereotypes mentioned in this article are appalachia pretty much being the home of the banjo and certain food types. Race also plays a major role in the stereotyping of appalachia. Some of the stereotypes in film, TV and other popular culture about appalachia that I have noticed are, they portray these people to be inhuman like and people who just live off the land and can not communicate like people normally can. They also portray them to be a little unintelligent and cut off from the real world. These stereotypes misrepresent this people in so many ways. They are not monsters or unintelligent people who do not know anything about what is going on in the world. These are people who just grew up in these areas and chose to never leave. This lifestyle is what they are use too and usually most comfortable with. They are humans not monsters, they just may have a different life style versus people living in other areas.TayMills (talk) 21:03, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

In this article, the author shows many bad opinions about people in this area. One major stereotype that was mentioned in this article is that someone thought that two Latino men were stealing a cop car when it was really their police car. Hispanics in the area being discussed are still being unfairly aimed at, and this is a good example of it. A photographer was only trying to capture photos of Latino families when someone called in to the cops that two Latino’s were trying to steal a cop car. Why does it have to be that Latino’s could not be cops and there is no way that it was their own car? It ended up being that it was really their car and the photographer was taking pictures of them. Another stereotype is that these people are not as fortunate as others and that they are poverty stricken. Many of them do not have as much money to spend on other things. This is not only portrayed in this article, but in other media as well. Films and TV shows always show minorities as the bad people or the people that are going to steal and do bad things. I think that this is something that needs to be changed. These stereotypes misrepresent Appalachian people because not everyone is trying to steal or poverty stricken. Many people are able to get by just fine and have the same lives that people not in this region do. E.Kassel (talk) 21:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

There are many stereotypes surrounding the Appalachian community such as it primarily consists of white people more than any other race and racism is found widely throughout. But the biggest misconception that I find myself sometimes forgetting is the actual geographical location of Appalachia. It runs from Southern New York state through Alabama whereas most people think it's centrally located in states of West Virginia and Kentucky. Like the short video we just watched in class, there is an apparent genre of horror films around the idea of "hillbilly" monsters. These monsters display very similar characteristics, qualities, and ideals that scare the viewer into thinking if they go into the wilderness then these are the type of people they will encounter. But films aren't the only place these depictions occur. In television there are shows like Hillbilly Monsters, Hillbilly Moonshiners, and Hillbilly Blood that follow around these people who fit the stereotypical Appalachian. The people in these shows are usually wearing overalls, appear to be uneducated, living in remote forest areas, and sometimes on the wrong side of the law. It seems that these depictions have developed from other successful attempts in media; Dukes of Hazard, Deliverance, Duck Dynasty, Coal Miner's Daughter, Hatfield's & McCoy's. In reality these true stories and fabricated characters stem from a very small percentage of the Appalachia community. The easiest way to understand this is ask yourself, Are the people living in the city of Atlanta considered Appalachian? Because they are.Brendan.Hunstad (talk) 21:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Poor, uneducated, and white: these are stereotypes of Appalachian people as depicted in Sarah Baird’s “Stereotypes of Appalachia Obscure A Diverse Picture.” Both the media and policymakers have perpetuated this image while neglecting the truth of the matter. When a news organization needs a poster child for poverty, they choose Appalachia. Politicians participate in poverty tours around the area despite the fact poverty provides a very narrow picture of Appalachia. In popular culture, Appalachians are portrayed as white, uneducated, violent heathens. The image of a pregnant woman chain smoking outside of a trailer is far too common. Appalachians are largely misrepresented. The “white washing” of Appalachia leads one to believe racial diversity is not present. This is untrue as the Appalachian region is a melting pot with minorities making up a significant proportion of the population. Baird states that 42 percent of new residents in Appalachia are minority populations. Appalachian culture is also depicted in a negative light. Appalachians are hardworking, peaceful people. They enjoy nature and put an emphasis on local culture whether it is local food, music, or clothing. Appalachia is a community. If the mainstream media were to consider the effect of these stereotypes, perhaps the dialogue would change and Appalachians could finally be depicted as they are: human. Angela Reighard (talk) 22:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

In the article “Stereotypes Of Appalachia Obscure A Diverse Picture” Baird presents many stereotypes about Appalachia, specifically; extreme poverty, health epidemics, fear of the unknown/outsiders, and a majority of income being derived from mining coal. Other media sources further the previously mentioned stereotypes to a more extreme extent. These include: severe lack of intelligence, inbreeding, white, and racist. Although some of the stereotypes can be seen, such as the “coal crescendo”, there is a major misrepresentation of Appalachia in the media. A large diversity of ethnicities including African American, Latino, Hungarian, Italian, and Eastern European can be seen among the Appalachian population. The article detailed that there is a heavy sense of community among the Appalachian population. This has created a self-imposed isolation from the outside world, causing the trend of economic depression to continue in the region. This manifests itself in terms of access to current technological and medical progress.

Cf105308 (talk) 21:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

From the video, I think Appalachians are also really violent with horrible appearance. Their amusement is to abuse people like cutting body part or rape. Most screen image of Appalachians are monstrous and scary. After reading “Stereotypes of Appalachia Obscure a Diverse Picture”, I think the stereotype of Appalachia is poor, rude, and low intelligence. Appalachians living in mountain town which makes them kind of isolated from the mainstream society. Their main source of income is coal mine. Appalachians live like miner which also no requirement of being civilized for them. On the other hand, they are multiracial ethnic. They comprise not only native Americans but also Europeans and Africa-Americans. There are always diverse stories and voices in Appalachian. The reading makes me feel like the society of Appalachians is chaos. The population also increased rapidly over past several decades. Their lack of employment opportunity also caused that people there are backward. I never heard about the story about Appalachian and this article really interested me. The stereotype of Appalachian is negative but interesting.JonieXie (talk) 21:17, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Navigating Genres

Read Kerry's Dirk's essay "Navigating Genres," then respond to the prompt below before class Monday July 7. According to Dirk (and the other researchers she references) definitions and understandings of genre as a concept have changed? What was the "old" understanding of genre and what is the new understanding? How can understanding genre help us as writers? Write a response of at least 300 words and be sure to sign your post using four tildes. Matthewvetter (talk) 14

39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

In this article Dirk talks about the concept of genres and how it has developed over time. He explains that the "old" definition of genre simply has to do with forming new ideas. When something new happens, a response must be made. People then begin basing and comparing their responses to each others forming genres. He explains that these idea start in the form of things like letters, papers, documents, and even music. The "new" definition of genres is more complex. Genres become more directed as more people contribute. Their becomes a purpose, for example, telling a joke to make people laugh. He also explains that we use these genres as guidelines in a way to become better writers. For example, if you already know what a research paper looks like, you don't have to make up an entire new genre. You can base you paper off of that same idea but make it your own. Genres also give you the opportunity to have a clear targeted audience. We can use genres as writers to to help us better understand the situations and figure our what our purpose is going to be. This is a helpful tool for anyone to use through life for things like resumes, internships, or papers. Jp302408 (talk) 19:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)jp302408

Dirk’s essay on genres discusses the “old” and “new” definitions of the work genre and talks about how understanding of the genre that you are writing in can be beneficial to making an argument. The “old” definition that Dirk and her references give to genre is the form in which the writer is articulating his or her arguments. Examples of this would be, a friendly letter, a scientific paper, or a professional email. The “new” definition is agreed to be the goal of the writing piece. The example that Dirk gives is a letter to her bank attempting to get a fee waived. Another example of this could be writing in a genre to persuade a friend, teacher, or professional associate to see a similar point of view that you, the writer, see. It is very important to know the genre that you are writing in. As previously discussed the “new” definition of genre is the goal of the piece that is being written. So if I was writing a presentation to the U.N. to support my mission trip to Africa, I would want to know that ahead of time to prepare my presentation, so I do not walk in front of the leaders of the world and involve jokes and terms that only my close friends would find funny and comprehend. Giving a presentation for one group of people that was prepared for an entirely different group of people would not help me obtain my goal very well. This goes for major things like looking to the U.N. for support, explain to my parents why they should continue to pay for my summer classes, or talk my friends into allowing me to barrow a video game. in conclusion, there are many kinds of genres that I feel the writer must be somewhat knowledgeable about to effectively approach prospective audiences.ATBeach (talk) 20:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

"Navigating Genres" helped me to better understand just how prominent genres are in everyday life and how adept we are at writing/understanding the plethora of genres out there and their given rhetoric whether we know so or not. Kerry Dirk uses examples that range from country song lyrics to ransom notes to thesis statements. We all know what rhetoric is expected from each and what each genre is attempting to accomplish. For instance, any even slightly aware person can easily distinguish what makes a good ransom note even when they have no experience writing in said genre. The old understanding of genre is formulaic in its attempt to articulate a specific argument, i.e. the form with which the author is arguing. In contrast, the new understanding of genre is interactive in its attempt to articulate the goal of the argument, i.e. the reason for the argument itself. In order to effectively make an argument, a writer must know not only the traditional form of a specific genre but become proactive in understanding the open-endedness of a writing's specific audience and how that audience will be persuaded by the argument in one way or another. In understanding this distinction we, as writers, will be better prepared for the prospective evolution of genre. Emgiunta (talk) 21:32, 6 July 2014 (UTC)emgiunta

In Dirk’s essay, “Navigating Genres,” the differences between the ‘old’ and ‘new’ definitions of genre are discussed. When talking about the old definition of genre, Dirk defines it as a form in which the writer simply fills in the blanks. Dirk then cites an Anne Freadman quote in which she says that this definition discredits the entire idea of a genre because it causes writers to misuse the genre they are attempting to write in. Examples of this ‘old’ definition of genre include the State of the Union Address. For the address, the first president, George Washington, set the example for how he thought that the address should be delivered. All presidents after him used his address as a sort of template for what their address should look like and what it should accomplish. Later on in the essay, Dirk cites Carolyn Miller saying that the definition of genre must take into account the goal of the writing. Dirk then goes on to say that without even realizing it, genre is used in our everyday lives in order to for people to accomplish things. Some examples given in the essay of the ‘new’ definition of genre include telling jokes, writing emails, or simply posting a status on Facebook. Dirk explains how there are certain things that each of these examples are supposed to accomplish. For jokes, Dirk mentions the fact that they are supposed to “generate a laugh, emails should elicit a response, and Facebook statuses should generate comments from your friends.” So overall we know what these things should accomplish in the long run but they also have some simple conventions to follow. Dirk gives examples of these conventions as not telling your mom an inappropriate joke, not opening an email to a professor with “Hey Buddy,” and not posting a Facebook status with too much information. Allyleah817 (talk) 21:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I enjoyed reading this article but I couldn’t help but think back to a class I attended last year, History of Rock I. In this class and its sequel, History of Rock II, the professor Andre Gribou similarly dissected the definition of genre like that of Dirk’s essay. Obviously we started with the foundation of rock’n roll in the early twentieth century and how the genres were categorized. Much like Dirk discusses the old understanding is in the template or format which he provides through examples like Presidential Inaugural Addresses or basic essay formats that we learn in freshman composition. Professor Gribou also started with the old understanding of genre by looking at the format to rock music in it’s famous 4/4 back-beat. As the genre develops and branches out we learn about the new understanding. Dirk describes the new view of genre is the goal of the piece or the purpose of the writing as seen in his examples from The Onion or his letter to his bank for the late fee. Throughout the history of rock music we see these changes in style and performance. Though it still falls in the “rock” genre, its goal or purpose makes it different to become its own subcategory like with punk rock or glam rock; one brings the message to rebel and the other focuses on the artistic aspect. By understanding both perspectives to genre the writer can more effectively get their work to the proper audience. By using the knowledge of genre, the writer will allow their work to be received at its fullest potential. For example, if someone wanted to order a pizza they would have better luck ordering from a pizza restaurant than a Chinese restaurant.Brendan.Hunstad (talk) 07:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

This reading on genres and their background was mind opening. I have never thought of genre as a simplistic word or the definition, simply as what it is. More specifically, I have never thought of genres as being a good or bad thing. I think of it as a way of sorting through different types of film, books, media, etc. This reading makes me thinking about context constitutes and what genre it will be placed in. Dirk points out that, in his opinion, the general consensus changed about genres when Lloyd Bitzer went about describing genre in a new way. He says that when something happens and deserves a response, when that same something happens again, the initial response will play as a guide to the second, and so on. Another turning point he refers to is Carolyn Miller’s attempt to define and explain genres by saying they are part of and constitute our daily lives. She refers to genres as a way for us of knowing right from wrong, what to do and what not to do, and helping us to achieve success; all with knowledge of genres and understanding them. I think genres can help us when writing because we write to achieve a goal, whether that goal be to inform, to persuade, to punish, to harm, to upset, to enlighten, the list is endless, but we write for a purpose and these purposes are instilled in genres. The genre in which you are writing is more specifically, what you are writing. I thought it was interesting that it states a typical reaction when picking up a book or movie is to first classify it in your brain based on the imagery or words that stand out to you. This is exactly what happens, though it is not the only thoughts I have when picking up a book, it is definitely the first one; classifying it’s genre.JonieXie (talk) 14:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

In this article “Navigating Genres”, describes the old and new ways of genres in regards to types of writing. There are many different ways to make an argument along with persuading your audience to make a certain point. There are a lot of important factors that need to be addressed before deciding on a specific genre of writing technique, for example; knowing who your audience is and whom you want to target with your persuasion is very important. You need to be aware of what you need to say or prove to get your point across to a certain audience that you are trying to appeal too. As your audience may change, the writing style may also have to change in the approach of persuasion. Dirk’s made a few points about how some people will use templates that were previously successful to help them shape and guide their writing/speeches. He also talked about making jokes, this could be tricky: this is another area where you really need to be aware of your audience so you are not insulting or discriminating anyone or anything. However, jokes could really go a long way if they are appropriate to your point and used in the correct context. Being aware and familiar with different types of genre will just make your writing more powerful and effective to help make your point and get your audience really listening. TayMills (talk) 16:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The article "Navigating Genres" written by Kerry Dirk, the topic of genres and how they have changed over time is discussed. She talks about how genres used to just imply filling in the blanks of a specific topic and working off of others work. However, genre has evolved and has a bit more creative freedom now, it is good for the writing and provokes thought if looked at correctly. A writer should be asking themselves about the audience, the purpose and the genre that you are writing for, knowing that a specific genre can cover two very different looking writings under the same umbrella. All of this can be very helpful to us as writers as it will hopefully prevent us from sticking to the standard intro and body paragraphs starting with "first, second, and third" and allow us to expand upon these questions in a manner that sticks to the proper form but in a way that is creative and applies to the genre the writer is trying to fit. Instead of working just to fill in the blanks we should be looking at the rhetorical effectiveness of our writing. She also discussed the importance and difficulty of being able to analyse and identify what genre a work should fall under. This is something I previously though of as being a fairly simple task, however reading this article made me realize how broad and complex the topic of genres truly is. As Dirk mentions, writers very often look for knowledge of how to write a new assignment based on people who have written in the same genre prior to themselves. This is something I know I have done in the past, gaining confidence from examples. However, the struggle this creates is again the issue of making sure your writing isn't just filling in the blanks, or creating a cookie cutter of previous work. We must be aware of genre and use it to enrich our writing but prevent it from harming out creativity and personal views. AKrahe (talk) 17:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)AKrahe

Genre, according to Kerry Dirk used to refer to form. A writer simply needed to identify the genre and then filling in the missing pieces of that genre type. The new definition of genre is more directly related to the argument of the source. The article also talked about the "new" definition of genre being ties to recognizing reoccurring situations. These reoccurring situations allow us to understand and expect certain rules and languages with regard to the piece. It also gives the readers hints as to how to respond to piece. The old definition of genre was rigid and forced writers to stay within the rules and boundaries that had been previously set. The new definition is more fluid and allows writers more means to achieve their goals. As a writer, genre helps us understand certain expectations that readers will have when they read our creation. Readers who pick up an action book are not going to want to read 350 pages of a slow budding love triangle that fleshes out character arcs and involves no explosions or action. The same goes for someone who is looking for a romance novel and reads a story about a lone solider who blow up a terrorist camp. Neither reader is happy with what they have read. They probably even feel as though they have been tricked by the author. These readers expect a certain pace, a certain language, and certain events to transpire within the story. While the genre "Action" does not provide us with a rigid box that writers have to stay in, it does help guide the writer along. They can still provide surprises here and there but they must make sure they fulfill the expectations of the genre.ZackaryMullikin (talk) 17:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

In Kerry Dirk’s essay “Navigating Genres,” she discusses the old and new definitions of genre. She also talks about how genre can persuade someone’s writing and how their arguments are made. Before reading this article, I did not really think about genres in this type of way. I just assumed them to be the way we see a certain type of television show, book, or music, and not the depth behind it. In the example given about George Washington’s State of the Union address, once we realize that a certain situation is the same as a past one, it is easier to respond to a current one. When George Washington created the genre used for the State of the Union address, all of the presidents after him have used the same format. The format that is used persuades how the president is going to write their speech, and how the country will perceive it. While this format may be forever changing, so are all genres. Just because we see it a certain way once, does not mean that it will not be different in the future. Genres are a huge topic and there will always be new ones that occur and old ones that fail to continue. “Navigating Genres” is a perfect title to this essay because being able to navigate through different and ever changing types of genres will always be a part of everyday life. E.Kassel (talk) 18:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Genres have changed dramatically throughout time. In Navigating Genres b Kerry Dirk’s article is started with stating that genres are part of form and how something can fit in and fill in the blanks but over time it has changed to be more specific. In the article Dirk eventually shows that genres are centered on the task that is being done. Because the idea of Genre has changed we are able to use it more in our every day lives. Genre surrounds us it is involved in everything we have around. The most common things from movies to music can be easily categorized with genres but, even things like how we write a letter can involve genre. Since this can be used in our writing it can be helpful to know more about it. By learning about genre we as writers can improve the audience and message we are trying to convey. By increasing our knowledge of genre we can help to send the right message to the reader and better our writing in the process. Genre can also help us to improve the message we are trying to convey by showing us what type of format we should be using. This can help us to know if we should write an essay, letter, or even a story depending on what it is about. Genre is important to learn about in order to succeed and do better with our writing.Alliemarie101 (talk) 18:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Kerry Dirk’s “Navigating Genres” examines the use and creation of genres throughout history. Originally, the use of genre looked like a fill-in-the blank process; genre was a form. Since then, situations have occurred time and time again that initiated a certain response. For example, the State of the Union Address started with George Washington. The president had to create a new genre simply by responding to an unfamiliar situation. The form and the content of the State of the Union Address was created and from there, presidents have followed a similar pattern. However, it is important to note that genres are more than reoccurring rhetorical situations. Instead, genres are a tool used to accomplish a particular goal. By knowing your genre, you are able to communicate effectively. When writing a resume or research paper, it is important to note the typical conventions used in that particular genre. Recognizing this rhetorical situation will allow you to react appropriately and reach your desired outcome. For instance, you would not write long paragraphs on a resume, but this would be appropriate in a research paper. Oppositely, the use of bullet points and incomplete sentences would likely not be accepted in a research paper. Genres are a tool; you just have to know how to use them.

This new explanation of genre holds significance because genres play a role in our everyday lives. Being able to identify the locations in which you are writing, and more importantly the shifts in location, is vital to rhetorical effectiveness. This recognition could be the difference between an “A” or a “D” or getting hired or being fired. The same rules do not apply to every genre, which is why genre awareness is so important. Dirk raises important questions to consider when determining a genre: What do I want to accomplish? What is the situation I am writing in? How have others responded to this situation? What questions do I need answered? By asking these questions, writers are able to not only identify, but navigate genres. Angela Reighard (talk) 19:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The way Dirk uses the term genre refers more to a form of writing rather than the newer definition that relies on recognizing situations that are prevalent in each “genre” or form of writing. A reader with an understanding of genre would expect to find certain situations and events in the genre that is being presented. Because these events and situations are often common in stories of a specific genre does not necessarily mean that the story must contain them. The rules of storytelling are not so rigid as to force the author into certain behaviors when telling a story. Authors are allowed creative control and they can choose to throw out all of the common methods of the genre for which they are writing if they so choose. However, audiences over the years have developed certain expectations when indulging in a story of a particular genre. Although the author can develop the story any direction they desire it may alienate fans and produce a negative result. Most people actively reading the story are well aware of the genre they are reading and are doing so because that is a genre that they enjoy. Taking away the aspects of the genre that the fans enjoy can confuse the reader. Thus we can see why writing in a particular style to produce a desired genre outcome can please the reader and keep them interested and engaged in the story, which is of the utmost importance. Mkak8 (talk) 19:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

In Navigating Genres Dirk helps us better understand the ideas behind genres. Before I read this article I thought that it was going be about genres such as something being a western or a piece of writing being science fiction. This is not the case that I found when I began to read this article. Dirk points out that there are new and old ways of writing in genre. In old ways it tended to be just writing for the arguments sake and putting the argument into the genre and as long as that argument is made successfully the genre is filled. The new way tends to focus on the argument in a presentation esque manner such as the example with the ransom note. There are several ways that a person can write a ransom note, but not all these ways stay true to the genre such as the example of a polite ransom note. It is not one thing to just write in the genre and make an argument such as the old style, but it is to make that argument that fits the genre itself. Going back to the example of ransom notes. Without the context of the ransom not in the argument you are making within this genre you do not fit the genre itself so it can not be considered a ransom note. Without context it seems that Dirk argues you are not correctly applying your writing in the genre itself.MattSchimm (talk) 19:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

In the article Kerry Dirk discusses how the understanding of genre has changed overtime. She begins by explaining to the reader that genre is actually a much broader term than the average individual considers it to be. Dirk then divulged that the old understanding of term meant the form of the media the composer uses during creation process. Specifically she related the old understanding as a simple filling in of blanks depending on what topic and media was utilized. Dirk referenced the rhetorician Lloyd Bitzer, stating that new genres are created any time a new precedent is set in regard to a certain situation. Then following the response to said situation, people have a contextual reference for subsequent responses. Kerry then cites a communication professor (Miller) noting that goals no matter how minute, can be accomplished if the genre for the situation is known. Dirk ruther explains to the reader things such as social media posts and even emails are their own genre and as such shape our everyday lives without us knowing. One of the difficulties with genre and the new understanding of it, is that two similar texts may fit into the same genre but their form/appearance can be rather different. Dirk finished the article by explaining how important genre is if one wants to have effective communication regardless of topic. Understanding of the function of a variety of genres more specifically, is vital to being an adequate writer. Cf105308 (talk) 20:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia Is Good For You?!

In "Wikipedis Is Good For You!?," Purdy argues that there are two ways we can use Wikipedia to inform our research and writing, as a source, and as a process guide. Write a short summary of both of these sections in Purdy's chapter. How is Wikipedia useful as a source? How as a process guide? Finally, name one thing you learned about the Wikipedia interface from this essay that you didn't already know. 300 words before class Wednesday. Be sure to sign your post with 4 tildes.

Purdy’s article made me appreciate and accept Wikipedia more as a source and interactive information tool. The first use of Wikipedia that he mentions is as a source. He talks about how it is user friendly, and usually easy to understand. It is also more up to date than an encyclopedia. The problems that teachers have with using it as a source include concerns about credibility, it is constantly changing, and it is comparable to citing an encyclopedia. The second use of Wikipedia is as a process guide. This means putting the task for good research-based writing to work. In any order you practice reviewing, conversing, revising, and sharing. I learned a little bit about how it works as an interface and how to navigate through it. I also was unaware of how the reviewing process worked.Jp302408 (talk) 19:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)jp302408

In Purdy’s article “Wikipedia is good for you?!.” He discusses two ways, which we are able to use Wikipedia. The first he covers in as a source; By this he means that you are able to quote or paraphrase it in a paper (Purdy). In most schools teachers do not approve of this because of the ability for anyone to edit it and the variableness in the information. These two factors can lead to many false facts on the pages. Because of Wikipedia’s unreliably Purdy suggest that you do not use the pages as a direct source. However you can use it to give you some background information or to help link you to a credible source. The second way in which Purdy suggest you use Wikipedia is as a processing guide. He states that is can better help you with the tasks of research based writing like, “writing: reviewing, conversing, revising, and sharing (211).” By knowing these steps you can make yourself a better writer and better understand how Wikipedia works, therefore bettering your ability to use the site to benefit your research. Purdy explains that if you are able to understand the process behind how the page is made you can better understand what is right and wrong about the page you are researching. Reading through Purdy’s research taught me that it is important to check things on the page you can do this by looking at the tabs on the top, edit, article, discussion, and history. By looking at these tabs you are able to see how much the page has changed and what people were working on it, making it easier to get credible information.Alliemarie101 (talk) 18:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

In the article “Wikipedia Is Good for you?!”, Purdy argues that there are two ways to use Wikipedia and they are using it as a source and using it as a process guide. Using Wikipedia for sources is convenient in regards to how easily it can be accessed. Not to mention, Wikipedia is relatively easy to understand. In school, teachers would always frown upon using Wikipedia as a credible source, for the simple fact that anyone can write on Wikipedia, allowing for any personal opinions and incorrect information. Purdy explains how it is important to always verify information with multiple sources and look for sources written by academic professionals and recognized experts. Another reason why Teachers do not appeal to Wikipedia is because of its changeability. Purdy used Michael Jackson as an example of how the death of Michael Jackson and the articles on him have changed as more information is being found. This could make the information very unreliable. Using Wikipedia as a process guide, for generating ideas and finding sources. It is also part of good research based writing with reviewing, conversing, revising and sharing. I was unaware but the Wikipedia Interface of an article has four tabs labeled, article, discussion, edit this page, and history. Each tab allows you different opportunities to view background information on an article. These will help you find and use more credible sources and information gathered from Wikipedia.TayMills (talk) 02:54, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Purdy’s chapter is an argument for using Wikipedia as a credible resource for research and writing. He suggests two ways for using Wikipedia, as a source and a process guide. He starts by explaining the flaws of Wikipedia and the reason teachers do not allow it as a source. Because there is open participation virtually anyone can modify a page leaving it inaccurate. Also unlike “hard” sources every page is susceptible for change and there unreliable. However, Purdy believes Wikipedia can still be used as a source for ideas, links to other texts, and to search terms rather than the traditional sense for citations. Therefore one may find it beneficial to start their research with Wikipedia since they require material posted to be cited. Once a person finds information of value they can follow the cited sources to verify it and read further for more valuable information. This means Wikipedia can turn out to be a great gateway tool. Secondly Purdy supports using Wikipedia as a process guide or as practice for better research-based writing. By interacting with Wikipedia the user will become more proficient at reviewing other authors work, conversing with those authors to provide the best modifications, revising articles regularly to keep them current, and lastly sharing their research-based writings to receive constructive feedback. All of these practices are an important part to knowledge creation according to Purdy and can help develop a sufficient technique for informative writing. I must admit that I have overlooked the usefulness of Wikipedia in the past and Purdy does make a solid point to his argument. However I have already learned to use it as a gateway for information when researching topics. But did not know Wikipedia is almost as accurate as the Encyclopaedia Britannica for science topics as reported by Jim Giles. Or that John Seigenthaler played a role in assassinating President John F. Kennedy and Robert Kennedy. lolBrendan.Hunstad (talk) 04:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

This chapter by Purdy explores what he sees as the two main uses for Wikipedia as a writing tool. Purdy argues the merits of Wikipedia as a research tool but discusses how teachers, professors and the academic community at large do not typically respect Wikipedia. The main causes of this disrespect is the fact that Wikipedia is an open platform that can be edited by the public. This causes unease in people who don’t fully understand how the technology works. In my opinion it is far more preferable to have an encyclopedia be open sourced to the public rather than a select committee of “wise men” and researchers. However, the academic community enjoys the reliability of printed information. An encyclopedia, for example, would be released in editions. Courses can be standardized using the same editions of printed material and it will be the same every time, whereas Wikipedia may change throughout the day as users contribute and edit the knowledge therein. This dynamic aspect of Wikipedia can complicate life for instructors but it is a crucial function of Wikipedia because it allows the information to be constantly up to the date. Purdy discusses the many benefits of Wikipedia as well as its flaws. He believes, as do I, that Wikipedia is an exceptional tool for research. Many people do not know that the information on Wikipedia is sourced at the bottom of the page. This makes it a vital tool for easily finding relevant sources for writing and research. Purdy also discusses how using and contributing to Wikipedia can help a person improve their writing and process. The collaborative nature and the goal of constant improvement makes Wikipedia a great tool for writers. The one thing I learned today about Wikipedia’s interface was that you can view the history of an article and see past iterations of articles. Mkak8 (talk) 17:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The article “Wikipedia is Good for You?!” discusses the reasoning behind the idea that Wikipedia is actually a good source for research and writing. Throughout my years of school I was always taught that we should never use Wikipedia in any research because it is not credible, and anyone can change the information on the page. Although this is known, Purdy uses the argument that Wikipedia does not have to be the source that you are citing, but can be a source of three things. These three things are 1) ideas, 2) links to other texts, and 3) search terms. As a process guide, Purdy says that Wikipedia is also good for helping someone with his or her writing. Going through articles and revising them is a good way to “help you understand the role of reviewing in research-based writing.” For Wikipedia contributors to be successful, they must look at all the aspects of Wikipedia. This can come from reading old versions of the page, reading discussion surrounding the article, and reading texts both in and out of Wikipedia. Purdy says that contributors need to look at all of these different areas because it will make them more successful in their writing. Before reading this I had no idea that Wikipedia was this in depth and that it was actually a good place for research. Now when I do research papers I know that Wikipedia is going to be a good source for the start of my writing and can lead me to other places to research. E.Kassel (talk) 18:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

In the article “Wikipedia is Good for You” Purdy declares Wikipedia is useful as a source because it can help illustrate “recursive revision based on idea development, textual production based on participation in a conversation rather than isolated thinking, and research based on production rather than only critique. As a source, Wikipedia is often one of the most up to date knowledge bases available to the public, and is also written in transparent language. The accessibility and ease of use make the knowledge obtainable for nearly anyone with internet connection. However, the variability among versions of a given article makes it difficult to cite. As a writer contributing to Wikipedia can also be useful as a process guide. Essentially, every time a writer edits or contributes to an article, they are creating research-based writing regardless of the subject. The same process a writer goes through to create a research-based text, must be performed to advance a wiki article. This process includes researching, reviewing, conversing, revising and sharing. If a contributor supplements an article with information the community deems ill-suited, it will simply be removed. Purdy suggests the order of the process is not necessarily analogous, but that each action is performed regardless of the platform used. Before this class I was unaware of the “talk” page on a Wikipedia article, as well as having access to all versions of an article at any given moment. I was surprised to find out how often contributors revise articles, as detailed in the example of Michael Jackson’s death. I also found it interesting that a hierarchy among contributors exists once a writer has amended a vast amount of articles. Cf105308 (talk) 18:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

In "Wikipedia is Good For You?!", Purdy argues that Wikipedia has two uses; as a source and as a processing guide. Purdy first argues that Wikipedia can be used as a source or a article that we as writers can quote or paraphrase in a paper. Teachers typically do not like Wikipedia being used as a source because of it's open participation and changeability. This means that anyone with a computer and internet can go to any Wiki article and change the information on it to anything they wish. Purdy argues that Wikipedia is a good starting point as it provides ideas, links to other texts, and search terms. The second argument Purdy makes in this article says that Wikipedia can be used as a processing guide. Wikipedia helps you review, converse, revise, and share. These steps help you become a better writer. Understanding how a Wiki page comes together and is created and revised allows you to see the strengths and weaknesses of a page and allows you to adjust accordingly when researching or writing a paper. While this has been discussed in class, this article helped bring better understanding to just how much revision and discussion goes on when an edit is made to a page. I always knew that you could edit a page and that there was probably a team that worked together to make sure the page was correct but I never knew so much work went into editing a page. The discussion tab has people suggesting changes, justifying their changes, and asking others why a certain change was made. It's almost like an editing war is going on behind the scenes of Wiki articles. This article helped me better understand just what is happening behind the scenes at Wikipedia. ZackaryMullikin (talk) 19:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

In James Purdy's "Wikipedia Is Good For You!?", he talks about how Wikipedia can be used as both a source and a processing guide. He discusses how teaches often do not like to allow students to use Wikipedia as a source due to its ability to be edited and constently changing. However, although these may be viewed as drawbacks, it also means that Wikipedia is one of the mot up to date sources out there, and a great starting point for students that are starting a project. It also serves as a great way for students to find other sources to us in their research. Purdy argues that Wikipedia encourages reviewing, conversing, revising, and sharing; all things that make for better research based writing. Previously I was aware that anyone could go in and put whatever they wanted anto a Wikipedia page, but I was not aware that there is such a huge community of contributors. I also learned that this community of people is fairly dedicated to trying to keep the information found on Wikipedia as accurate as they can. Although as Purdy pointed out in his example about John Seigenthaler and how there was false information pointing towards his involvement in the Kennedy assassinations, was on Wikipedia for 132 days before it was fixed. All of this proves that Wikipedia is a good source and processing guide, bu that writers must be aware of its ever changing facts and be cautions with paraphrasing. Wikipedia is a great starting point when doing research based writing and a great community of people who are looking to gain and share knowledge in a fast pace up to date manner. 65.186.88.92 (talk) 19:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)AKrahe

Typically people want to use Wikipedia for a source. Purdy argues that this may not be appropriate with Wikipedia for a few reasons. The first example he gives, is an article on the biography of John Seigenthaler, a former journalists. This example shows the unreliability of Wikipedia as a source, because for 132 days the article stated that he had a hand in the assassination of President Kennedy and his brother. Of course this is a false statement and Seigenthaler appropriately took offense to it. The second example is an article on the late Michael Jackson. This is a case where the article has changed over time. Shortly after his death his article read, “This article is about a person who has recently died”. The article changed as time went on as most Wikipedia articles due, but that is the point. When using something as a source it should be easily accessed, if the article changes over time it cannot be accessed the same way again. The example that Purdy gives is if multiple people cite the same article, there may be multiple different versions they all referring to and no way to see any but the most recent. The third example of why Wikipedia should not be used as an article that Purdy gives is it is an encyclopedia. Most research wants students to dive deep into a subject, and this is hard to do with encyclopedias that are very general and basic in their information. Purdy does suggest using Wikipedia as a process guide. He states that “reviewing, conversing, revising, and sharing” are part of good research-based writing processes. Since Wikipedia is done in this way, it could be a good base to get ideas and work through the process will research topics. I felt that I did not really learn anything about Wikipedia that I did not already know, but it gave me ideas on how to properly use Wikipedia in researchATBeach (talk) 19:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia can be both a source and a process guide. James Purdy’s “Wikipedia Is Good for You!?” suggests when used correctly, Wikipedia is an effective researching tool. The site can help you to develop ideas, participate in scholarly conversation, and advance your writing. Purdy classifies two uses for Wikipedia: Wikipedia as a source and Wikipedia as a process guide.

As a source, Wikipedia can be used a “starting place.” A writer can develop ideas, find links to similar research, and compile search terms related to the topic. The headings of Wikipedia articles can be helpful in generating ideas for sections of a research paper. In addition, the bibliographies can direct you to articles on the same topic. This may be useful when trying to link to other texts in a research paper. Lastly, Wikipedia articles can provide search terms that can be used on university library databases. While Wikipedia can, and should, be used for researching, Purdy cautions writers to be sure to critically evaluate their source. Wikipedia articles are constantly being updated and revised so it is important to use the site as a tool, not as a quotable source.

Wikipedia can also be used as a process guide. In research-based writing it is important to ‘review, converse, revise, and share.’ Wikipedia allows a user to a view the history of an article. The history tab provides a detailed record of all edits and updates made to an article. As a writer, it is important to review what others have written on your topic so that you can write the most accurate and appropriate paper. Conversing with others is also key. Wikipedia authors are constantly engaging with contributors in order to apply changes to an article. In research papers, students should challenge sources. For instance, one should point out holes in an author’s argument. Revising and sharing are other aspects of the writing process. On Wikipedia, authors will share their articles in order for them to be critiqued and revised by other contributors. This is useful outside of Wikipedia in that it forces you to think critically about your writing and ask others to point out areas of improvement.

Purdy’s article offers insight on the Wikipedia interface. One thing I learned from this section was that each Wikipedia article has four tabs: article, discussion, edit this page, and history. These tabs will prove to be useful in our projects moving forward. By viewing the history tab, one can see the writing process visually which is helpful as a student. We can compare and contrast an article to see how important it is to revise and share your writing. Angela Reighard (talk) 19:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

In the article “Wikipedia is Good for You” Purdy argues two ways in which Wikipedia can be used, first as a source and second as a process. In using Wikipedia as a source, Purdy claims that it is true like most professors and teachers claim, that Wikipedia should not be used as a direct source to cite as a main source in your research paper. However it can be used to gain other sources of information. It is not useful as a direct source for several reasons according to Purdy. First is that it is changed over time and several versions of the page exist and this can lead to confusion if you list a previous version. Second is that it can be changed by anyone and incorrect information can be put on the page such as the example with the JFK assassination. However it can be useful to find other sources as Wikipedia requires editors to cite their sources and this can lead you to find viable sources about the topic which can be useful when you begin to write a paper. It is also useful in finding search terms for scholarly articles when you are looking in a database. Wikipedia can also be used as a process guide. Purdy suggests that looking through the discussion and talk pages of a Wikipedia entry can be useful in the writing process such as reviewing, discussion, revising and sharing. One thing I learned from this article is what it takes to actually get an edit you made to stay. You need to review what other editors have done to the article and read their discussion to make sure your new entry will give new information that they have decided is needed otherwise your entry will be pulled quickly. MattSchimm (talk) 19:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The two ways that Purdy argues that Wikipedia is a reliable source are one, using Wikipedia as a source and two using Wikipedia as a starting place. To start Purdy says Wikipedia has easy access for students and usually is pretty easy to understand. The article mentions that the writing in Wikipedia is normally current and up to date while it also provides interesting facts and information that can support a writer’s focus. On the other hand Purdy writes that usually teachers do not like when students use Wikipedia as a source because anyone can write a Wikipedia page regardless of expertise and qualifications. Purdy uses the example of JFK’s assignation, in Wikipedia John Seigenthaler is blamed for his death. The article states that at a college level writing asks the student to write at a deeper level, usually not found in an encyclopedia; meaning that any encyclopedias are not good sources that you should cite. This leads into the second way Purdy says to use Wikipedia, by using it as a starting place. Instead of using Wikipedia as a source for your writing use it as a starting place, find the information you want to use in your own writing and go to where they found it from and cite that source. Doing so might actually improve and give credibility the writing. Purdy says that there are three different ways that Wikipedia can be a good source, one; ideas, two; links to other texts (what I just mentioned) and three; search terms. To start with ideas, Wikipedia can give a writer multiple aspects on a subject. Using Wikipedia’s search terms acts like links and allows the writer to search deeper on the subject. Using Wikipedia as Purdy says can be both helpful and damaging, but hopefully the summary of the article will provide assistance when wanting to use Wikipedia as a source. Eh598110 (talk) 19:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

This Chapter talks about the many ways Wikipedia can help you with a paper. Although many teachers discredit Wikipedia as a source it can still be a helpful and useful tool when starting a paper. Wikipedia can be used as a process guide as Purdy explains in this chapter, but how? Wikipedia allows you to sift through tons of articles and only pull out key information without reading pages and pages of filler. You get what you need and other links to other pages that allow for a better understanding of something and allowing your paper to be more in-depth. Wikipedia can in fact be unreliable because anyone can edit the articles. Wikipedia has many ways to cross their T’s and dot their I’s figuratively speaking. Fact checking and time lines show when something was changed and updated, who did the edit and conversations among editors. These things can be found in Wikipedia’s tabs. Jim Giles states in this article “Wikipedia is almost as accurate as Britannica…on science topics”. So Wikipedia is an excellent source of data gathering and linking, but based on how it is designed as an open web based encyclopedia. The new information does change rapidly as new information and facts come to light. However on older topics the information is more credible, reliable and needs not all the tabs wekipedia offers to fact check like Talk and the links to the webpage information that was gathered from and so on. Malcolm Pullom (talk) 19:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I think that this reading shows several points explaining why Wikipedia is good for you. The fact that anyone can go in and create a page of information is both good and bad. If the information is historically acturate and up to date, it’s a great thing, but when people fudge the truth or exaggerate false details, this is when using this site becomes a problem. Although, you can edit any page on Wikipedia from any browser, that is also misleading. I have had several classes here at OU in which research papers and assignments using historical references was an everyday assignment and I have yet to take a class that allows Wikipedia to be a reference source. There are too many false pages, too many people that can change what was once probably an accurate page, but owing to the fact that anyone can change any given page on this site is what makes professors hesitant to allow this type of cited work. I do agree fully with the idea of conversing, talked about near the end of the reading. This is important and useful because it is almost like a debate centered type of writing. People who do not know each other, or commonly participate in debates or engaging in stimulating conversation can go on there and state their case for what and why they think it should be altered. This practice is a fairly unique quality to Wikipedia, although you can do this on your own time with your own friends or community; this site enables you to connect with people who may not even speak your language, know what country they’re from, or know their name, but have a joint interest in talking about a specific subject on Wikipedia.JonieXie (talk) 20:02, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia Student Training Modules 1 and 2

For our first hybrid (online) session, you should complete the Wikipedia Student Training modules 1 and 2 ("Welcome" and "The Core"). After you've completed these modules, please write out a short (200 word summary) of what you learned in the training, below. I'd also like you to practice a more "conversational" style on this talk page by "replying" to others' posts. You can use a colon (:) at the beginning of your response to indicate a reply to another's post (which will indent your post below another's). You should also practice titling your response by using a semicolon (;) at the beginning of your response.

A semicolon can make a single line title like so.

These posts are due by 6pm Friday. Good luck and have a good weekend.

Wikipedia Modules

What I Learned About Wikipedia

Module two was a great overview of how Wikipedia works as an interactive, collaborative encyclopedia. It talked about the content of Wikipedia and the five pillars or guiding principles. This article also talked about Wikipedia’s sister sites (Wikimedia) that offer access other tools like dictionaries, instruction manuals, source documents and many others. The main thing I took away from this module was the guiding principles along with the pillars. Wikipedia is laid back and the rules can be flexible, but they take a number of precautions to make sure their articles are credible. Because anyone can edit Wikipedia, they require their articles to have variability in its sources and a neutral point of view. To ensure notability, Wikipedia wants at least two independent secondary sources. To ensure neutral points of view, you may only use professional opinions along with their opposing view point. Also, Wikipedia is not a place for original work. It is a place to summarize an original topic or work of the past. I wasn't aware that making an article was such a process and how they made sure their website is credible. Jp302408 (talk) 21:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)jp302408

I really liked that showed up the process behind all of the things that it takes to make a Wikipedia article, I forgot to include that point in mine like you did in yours. I also thought it was really interesting how they said they try to only do relevant articles and get the writers opinions on themAlliemarie101 (talk) 22:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

This Wiki training allowed for a more in-depth look at Wikipedia and what they believe in. The five pillars are the guidelines to live by and fallow to become a good Wikipedian. I like how it goes over exactly what Wikipedia is, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia it is not a dictionary, newspaper or a book. Thus the creation of its sister sites that are just that a dictionary, newspaper or a book. I like how they honor nobility because it shows they trust their users and many are. However there are people who will plagiarize articles and information. All in all Wikipedia is very upfront with who they are. They tell you that they are a summary of information. Also who they are a third party source of information and how they allow links to the original information. It was extremely informative of what exactly Wikipedia is.Malcolm Pullom (talk) 18:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I like how you make the point that they honor nobility by trusting their users. This is something that they open up to the whole world/internet and trust that people will use it correctly, scary but pretty cool. TayMills (talk) 15:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

What I Learned

From the training models I learned the process to complete an article is actually pretty well structured and guided. It is not random and chaotic like most may think but they have spent time creating 5 guiding principles and the training does a good job describing their methods behind them. Furthermore there are guidelines beyond the 5 pillars. When making entries in Wikipedia the contributor must make sure their submission is verifiable from a reliable source and sometimes may need to justify the notability of an articles importance to the Wikipedia community. For a topic to have its own article it must have “significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject” according to Wikipedia guidelines. I find it unusual Wikipedia would put restrictions on the information submitted but then it makes sense to do so for them to provide the most accurate information. So naturally this also mean Wikipedia is not a place for submitting original research. And lastly Wikipedia holds a firm stance on copyright and plagiarism like all formal writing institutions.Brendan.Hunstad (talk) 18:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I also really enjoyed the part on what articles Wikipedia would allow and disallow.ZackaryMullikin (talk) 14:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

What I learned from the 1st training module was, essentially, an in-depth look into Wikipedia's 5 pillars and guidelines. It makes sense that, although Wikipedia is an open website which anyone can edit/submit to, there would need to be at least a few guiding principles to avoid conflicts. Some policies which stood out in my mind were: no plagiarism or copyright-infringement (and the rules of citing), choose reliable sources, assume the content other Wiki contributors post is in good faith, make an effort to keep in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which catalogs "notable" articles. From the 2nd module, I gained a better understanding of how to edit Wikipedia. I wasn't aware of what sandbox pages were, which will definitely make editing live pages more seamless in our upcoming assignments. Wikicode doesn't seem altogether difficult, which I would have thought it to be before completing the modules. However, I'll probably stick to the visual editor if it cause any difficulties. Emgiunta (talk) 02:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)emgiunta

What I have Learned about Wikipedia

The learning modules we did for Wikipedia taught me about the five pillars that they follow. I was able to learn that there are guidelines and rules to Wikipedia. This site is not just a free for all on what ever you wish to write but allows you to share your secondary sources and cross check them with other people. Another cool thing about Wikipedia is that they are not for or against any certain subject. They try to make everything as neutral as they can in order to fully explain the subject at hand. Wikipedia allows people to share the research they have found but not their primary research enabling them to further everyone's knowledge of a subject. These five pillars help me to understand more about how WIkipedia works behind the scenes as well as with the articles we read everyday. Alliemarie101 (talk) 21:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

What I Learned About Wikipedia

The two wiki training modules helped provide me with a deeper context and understanding of just what Wikipedia is and what it stands for. It did a great job of breaking down what each of the 5 pillars of Wikipedia are and how they are used in by people who participate in Wikipedia. While I really liked the breakdown of the 5 pillars, the most interesting part to me was the explanation of notability. Notability is how wikipedians decide if a Wiki article should be made about a person, time, place, or event. If you create an article that doesn't get enough coverage in reliable sources, you may be challenged by another wikipedian to see if the article can stay on Wikipedia. The idea of notability helps maintain a sense of order on Wikipedia and helps keep people in line. Without this we would have random articles about Joe from a random small town who has never done anything but wanted to be featured on Wikipedia. Notability helps increase Wikipedia's credibility. It was just cool to see how they decide what can stay and what is not allowed.ZackaryMullikin (talk) 14:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I also thought that the part about how Wikipedia makes sure that notability is important so that random articles are not just floating around was important. E.Kassel (talk) 15:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

What Wiki Taught Me

The Wikipedia learning module really helped me get a better understanding on the three key modules it discussed, the core, editing, and advance editing. In the core section the module discusses the five pillars, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; is written from a neutral standpoint, Wikipedia has free content which allows anyone to edit, use, modify and distribute; editors should treat each other with respect; and finally Wikipedia doesn’t have firm rules. It also explains how copy write and plagiarism is not acceptable, and how it is handled if in the situation. In the editing section of the module, it gives the audience a better understanding of how to edit a wiki page. It provides examples of how to bold text and also create wikilinks. Also in the editing sections, it goes into detail about how the talk page can help the writing. It also discusses a writers own personal sandbox, like a playground for their own writing, where they can learn and explore Wikipedia. Finally in the advance editing section the module just gives an more in depth description of editing in Wikipedia. Over all I really learned a lot! Eh598110 (talk) 14:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The Wikipedia training taught me how an article is to be constructed. There are 5 main guidelines or “pillars” that help shape and mold the way you write. Another thing that I found to be helpful is where it states that you need to decide how you want to present your article, whether it is about an event, place, time or person. These modules also make an important point to notify the users to not plagiarize or copy write when writing articles. This module helps us as audience members of Wikipedia to join and learn the correct and appropriate ways to use and interpret the different way Wikipedia is to be used. Before learning more about Wikipedia, I never realized how much is actually behind it, to make it a more credible and enjoyable place to receive information and give information or opinions. TayMills (talk) 15:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia training

The Wikipedia student training taught me a lot about how to correctly write articles and what their rules and guidelines are. I was unaware of all of the rules and guidelines that they have, and that articles actually have specific structures to use. There are five main “pillars” that Wikipedia uses to help you write an article, and these should always be followed. It also explains how plagiarism is handled and that it is something that they do not tolerate. I think that this part is very important because plagiarism is a big deal and it is also a very widespread issue. There are always people plagiarizing, and it is better to do your own work. Wikipedia also has to make sure that there are not just random articles floating around, and that every article is important to the site. Since many people say that Wikipedia is not always the best website to use for research, they have to make sure that each article is accurate and important so that idea can be turned around. I did not know there was this much that went into Wikipedia, so I am glad we had to do this training so I could learn more about it. E.Kassel (talk) 15:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Intro to Working in Wikipedia

To an inexperienced wiki user, the site can seem like a chaotic unregulated forum filled with vast info that anyone can change regardless of accuracy. The first point made in the training is that within Wikipedia, there are many guidelines and structure that shapes how articles are created and reformed. The Five Pillars are principles upon which wiki works. These include: free content to all, neutrality of articles, respect/civility among editors, its online encyclopedia form, and a lack of formal rules. Overall this module focused a lot on what Wikipedia is NOT rather than what it is. An important pillar to me is the neutral point of view among articles, as well as verification of sources. This distinguishes the site as a place where opinions, personal experiences and interpretations do not belong. Accessibility to the masses is another key feature of Wikipedia that allows it to grow daily. Not being locked down by copyrights and fees creates a larger source to draw from. The fifth pillar, no firm rules, means the site is governed by the users and they create informal “rules” for what is acceptable and what is not. This was a great prep tool to use for Project 2 as well as background info needed for editing an article (project 3).Cf105308 (talk) 17:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree, I always thought the site was chaotic until I did the trainingATBeach (talk) 17:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

My Experience with the Wikipedia Module

After watching the training modules on Wikipedia, I realized that there was a lot about Wikipedia that I did not know. The biggest thing was that Wikipedia checks for plagiarism. I of course had seen that editors often cite sources in Wikipedia, but did not know that it was a requirement from the website. Another thing I felt interesting is how serious that Wikipedia takes its’ articles. I found it fascinating that they are willing and prepared to take action against any rule violators and never before realized how organized and professional that they were. A third, thing I learned is that Wikipedia relies heavily on Wikipedians to edit mistakes in articles. This was interesting and shows that Wikipedia relies on an honor code that people seem to follow well, for the website to still be in use to this day. The rule against original research was interesting to me, because I did not realize that encyclopedias were tertiary sources bases off secondary sources, as the module states. My only question would be, what if a respected researcher felt the need to mention their own research on an article? Overall I felt the module was very interesting and changed my views on the subject of Wikipedia.ATBeach (talk) 17:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you I also found it very interesting how seriously it was taken by Wikipedia and its editors. I feel that they are very serious about their work and they want it to be taken just as seriously by everyone who edits and article.MattSchimm (talk) 18:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you, ATBeach , and MattSchimm . I think Wikipedians have to be extremely serious about all of this because so many people in academia and the world do not take it seriously. I can’t even count the number of times I’ve heard Wikipedia discredited. These people are doing good work and I hope that eventually people will realize the hard work being put in and start to give Wikipedia the credit it deserves.Mkak8 (talk) 19:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia Learning Modules

The two Wikipedia learning modules taught me a lot about how to conduct yourself in Wikipedia. Mainly the sections in the second module that go beyond the five pillars were really useful. The notability section describes whether a subject you want to put on the site is good enough to actually be a Wikipedia article. I did not know how in depth it actually went when someone wants to put a new subject in. It takes a lot of work to actually have enough information backing your request to get an article to stay up on the site and I found that very interesting. Also the descriptions of the five pillars helped me better to understand editing conduct and the requirements in Wikipedia’s view of a good article. I learned several things from these descriptions such as being neutral and presenting your information in a way that shows both sides of an argument and not being biased towards one side or the other which can be difficult when writing about some controversial subjects. Finally these modules have helped me to just better understand the conduct expected when working in Wikipedia and editing articles. I think it will be very useful information in the future. MattSchimm (talk) 18:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia Training

I think these modules were very helpful in learning more about Wikipedia and the guidelines they follow when receiving information. They explained how they deal with the seeming chaotic process of the unique characteristic of their website allowing anyone to edit the information provided. The organization into sections or pillars was useful in breaking down their site and how it works. Pillar number 2 explains how the opinion of Wikipedia is neutral and the sites attempt to display both sides without creating debate, which is the best way to gather information about any subject; by gathering all the information possible from all aspects of the subject. This coincides with the fourth pillar; editors behaving and contacting each other with respect and civility. The fact that anyone can edit the information does create a sort of messy situation, but, as stated in module 2, anyone can also read and check the information for verification meaning if false information is given, chances are someone will find out sooner than later. I never thought of the fact that thousands of people visit the pages of Wikipedia everyday. If there is something wrong with a page, there is a notice at the top warning visitors of the site to proceed with caution when using any of the information. Copyrighting and plagiarism are taken seriously on any given website containing research writings of any kind, Wikipedia should not be any different. Even though it can be changed daily, it is appreciated that Wikipedia recognizes these words as historically accurate information. These modules showed me the basics on how Wikipedia works and how the flow of information process unfolds. It will be interesting to learn how to edit the pages of Wikipedia in the further modules on the website.JonieXie (talk) 18:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

What I learned from the Student Training Modules

I learned several things today while completing the Wikipedia student training modules. I found it especially interesting that Wikipedia promotes this kind of “no rules” atmosphere and they trust their users with full editing privileges on the site so they have to assume (hope) that the users will be a positive influence on this collaborative encyclopedia project. To achieve this goal and promote truth in information Wikipedia has laid out some guidelines. They call these guiding principles the 5 pillars. One very important part of these guidelines goes over how users can and will be asked to provide reliable and sufficient sources to document claims and they may have to prove the importance of the information being submitted. This is done to keep articles truthful and relevant. I really enjoyed the part in module 2 about sandbox pages and wikicode. I have some minor experience with code and the stuff makes sense to me at first glance. I am looking forward to playing around with some of the neat effects that can be done with some simple code. Overall I learned a lot about what exactly Wikipedia wants from their contributors and a more in depth understanding of how to correctly source, edit, and style any contributions I will make in the future. Mkak8 (talk) 18:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I think it is really interesting how Wikipedia has a relatively loose structure. While they do have the five pillars, they say that rules do not necessarily have to be followed word-by-word. Instead, the general "spirit" of the rules should be considered. In addition, it is OK to make mistakes. The fact that Wikipedia includes this in their module says a lot about the community as a whole. They are pushing for collaboration among contributors, so that each article has multiple minds engaging in the subject. Angela Reighard (talk) 19:08, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia Student Training

Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. Wikipedia offers a neutral point-of-view. Wikipedia supplies readers with free content. Wikipedia is a civil community. Wikipedia does not have concrete rules.

These pillars make up the platform of Wikipedia.

Wikipedia’s Training Module gives students an in-depth look at the structure and guiding process of the genre. Wikipedia’s five pillars serve as a foundation for article development. It is important to remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia first and foremost. Thus, writers should not use the website for advocacy or advertising. Each article should be balanced and impartial, verifiable, and notable. If the topic is not something that can be confirmed through reliable sources, then it does not have a place on Wikipedia. In addition, topics need to have significant coverage outside of Wikipedia. It is also asked that authors are independent of the subject. For instance, LeBron James should not be writing his own Wikipedia article. Similarly, original research should be avoided. Instead, a writer should be summarizing the research of reliable sources. Most importantly, copyright and plagiarism are not tolerated on Wikipedia. Brief quoting is the only non-original writing that can appear in an article. As it is an online source, records of plagiarism will be permanent on the Internet. Angela Reighard (talk) 18:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I touched on most of the points you made in your post, I think the most important information we got from this was about the notability of the articles. Allyleah817 (talk) 20:23, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia Training Modules

These training modules show us what Wikipedia is all about using the five pillars. We talked about the five pillars in a good amount of detail. They include that Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, has a neutral point of view, is free content, should interact in a respectful and civil manner, and does not have firm rules. Beyond those core concepts, the module goes on to talk about the importance of verifiability. This means that everything an editor puts into a Wikipedia article has to be able to be verified by other editors to be from a reliable source. The next part of the module I found interesting. I didn’t know that each article has to be on a notable topic. I assumed anyone could create an article about anything. An editor has to be able to justify to other editors why the article is notable and why it should be allowed to be on Wikipedia. The guidelines that other editors use to decide if an article is notable or not are significant coverage, reliable sources, and independent of the subject. Significant coverage means that the subject has to have enough sources that describe the topic in detail. Reliable sources are necessary and need to be at least two independent secondary sources and from two different authors or organizations. Independent of the subject means that you can’t write about something you are affiliated with. Examples of this are advertising, autobiographies, and press releases. Also beyond the five pillars, the module tells us that original research is also not appropriate for Wikipedia. The last thing in the module talks about copyright and plagiarism rules. Basically, it isn’t allowed and it mentioned the punishments that could be applicable. Allyleah817 (talk) 20:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Training Module

The first two parts of the Wikipedia training module have done a really great job of breaking down the different aspects of Wikipedia for me. They did a great job of explaining the navigation of the site and the intended use as an encyclopedia and not another form. They really promote that although anyone can edit and add to an article, that what is on Wikipedia must be factual and backed up. Users must also work with the five pillars of Wikipedia, upholding a solid sort of code of conduct for all who use and add to the site. I also learned that Wikipedia takes copyright laws and plagiarism very seriously. They also have a fairly organized method for users that keeps all the articles organized, and they maintain the fact that they are a summary of information rather then a full source such as a book. They also expect that users will be respectful with one another and honest in what they are writing. The rules that Wikipedia has set out for their users are not set in stone and they state that they are up for interpenetration because users could understand and read the rules in different manners. AKrahe (talk) 20:23, 11 July 2014 (UTC)AKrahe

Wikipedia Student Training Modules 3 and 4

For our second hybrid session, you should complete training modules 3 and 4. Don't skip over the videos and do try the interactive training sessions which allow you to practice some of the most common code in Wikipedia (boldface formatting, links, and references). These two modules might take you longer than the first two, so be sure to give yourself enough time to do this. When you're finished, write a short response below where you both practice an advanced use of the editor (boldface/link/reference) AND discuss a lesson or moment from the training that was particularly interesting, helpful or confusing. Remember as well to continue formatting posts with titles or as responses to your classmates using the semicolon and colon commands. Don't forget to sign your post with 4 tildes. 200 words before Friday 6:10pm. Matthewvetter (talk) 21:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Modules 3 & 4

I actually did all of the modules the first time on accident, so I took the opportunity to look back over the modules to review. In the editing section of the module, it gives the audience a better understanding of how to edit a wiki page. It provides examples of how to bold text italicized text and also how to create wikilinks. Also in the editing sections, it goes into detail about how the talk page can help the writing. It also discusses a writers own personal sandbox, like a playground for their own writing, where they can learn and explore Wikipedia. Finally in the advance editing section the module just gives a more in depth description of editing in Wikipedia.it discusses what the right articles are to work on. It also teaches you what is expected for a Wikipedia page to be a good article. It explains how to get an article of wiki’s main page and also how one can receive feedback on articles they’ve written. Over all I really learned a lot and it was useful to review the information. It taught me what I need to spend more time on.Eh598110 (talk) 19:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia Modules 3 & 4

Some of the options that I found to be really interesting is how to format tasks, like bolding and italicizing text, creating headers, editing subsections, creating bulleted and numbered lists, creating links, creating references, and starting a sandbox page. I found the tutorial on Sandbox to be very helpful. I enjoyed how it broke down everything and showed you one thing at a time. Module 3 has taught me how to correctly link to another page and how to bold and underline writing. It also has taught me how to reference sources by formatting to put a number which links and numbers the link to the corresponding citation . In module 4, it teaches you how to choose articles that are more specific and less broad. Good choices when choosing articles consist of, a topic that is well established in its field, but only weakly represented. Gravitate toward a “stub” or “start” article because, they often only have a few paragraphs of information that need to be added to. Also, in module 4, they talk about how Wikipedia has a grading scheme for articles, which helps to improve your article. From beginning to end the grading scale consist of: stub, start, C, B, GA, FA. TayMills (talk) 17:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia Modules

These last two modules were really able to pull together everything we needed to know for our upcoming Wikipedia project. I liked how they made things very simple and easy to understand. I thought the most challenging part was the wiki links. It was a little confusing how you had to put the words in the brackets in a certain way to make sure it was linking to the correct thing. However with a little more practicing I’m sure I will get the hang of it. The most interesting part of the modules was the fourth one. I thought this was really cool because it shows us more of the stuff I didn’t know how to use in Wikipedia as opposed to learning how to Bold things.It showed us more of how to make references and a link on our own pages. Overall the training modules were able to help explain the steps to making a wiki and maintaining it. They were able to do this in a simple and concise way in order for almost anyone to be able to edit and make a page.Alliemarie101 (talk) 16:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia Training Modules 3 and 4

The quote that opened up the module really touched on what we are doing as a class; broadening the audience of our writing from being just our professor or peers to being anyone in the world that comes across our work. The module then goes into the basic editing skills that will be learned in the module, some of which are bolding text, making headers, creating lists, creating links and references, and working in sandbox. It explains how sandbox is a space where you can experiment and practice editing articles and planning out what you are going to do before it actually shows up in “mainspace” Wikipedia. The first code that you learn about is how to bold and how to make a link. The next part shows how to created sources so that you can easily cite your work in the references. Then it tells us about how to use the cite gadget to make citing easier. The module also explains how talk pages are used but we have talked about most of it in class. The sandbox is talked about in further detail, which I think will help us when we are editing or creating our own articles for the third project. The watch list gives you a space where you can follow articles that you are a contributor to. At the end of the third module it talks about how you should work with other contributors in order to keep the Wikipedia community together by using the bold, revert, and discuss cycle and it gives us some tips for good discussion with other contributors. The fourth module teaches us how to choose articles to contribute to by avoiding broad, controversial, and well-developed topics. It also discusses the ‘did you know’ process and gives a link to a step-by-step process. The next part I found interesting because Wikipedia tells you to not worry about making your article perfect and to take it one step at a time. The next part of the module talks about the grading scale for the articles, which ranges from featured articles to a stub class article. Finally, it gives us resources for how to add images and media to articles. Allyleah817 (talk) 21:34, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I like that you talked about the grading scale in your summary about it.I did think to include that in what I wrote!Alliemarie101 (talk) 16:31, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Dr Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Wikipedia

I think these last two parts of the training really helped me understand both how Wikipedia works and how it works effectively. I am surprised how easy it is to edit. Once you get the Wiki syntax down it’s really quite simple. Granted the training modules’ step-by-step process seemed too easy but then I went to my own Sandbox page and fooled around a little. I had to call on assistance from the Help section a couple times but it was not hard at all. Secondly Wikipedia has established an environment for its editors that appear to be centered on the same goal. The Talk pages are essential for allowing discussions about information and/or changes to articles to eliminate any hostilities between editors. They can cast votes on a topic, get feedback about edits, and even find out why their posts may not meet expectations. This Wikipedian society is civil, efficient, and united in their quest to build this virtual encyclopedia. Just don’t forget their motto: Be bold and cite often!

The 4th module, in particular, helped me because it guides you through the steps to creating your own wiki, how to monitor the wiki, and how to modify its look. It explains how to create a link using wiki syntax as well. The modules, in general, show how to create sources, which is an especially important part to creating a strong wikipedia page that will sustain the editing process. The sandbox will help us to further practice the processes of wikipedia before we submit our content, which will be a great resource in our upcoming project. The modules also further explain the talk pages and how they work and what the guidelines are for working with other contributors. Emgiunta (talk) 20:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)emgiunta

I also was really impressed with how easy it is to edit an article. Once you enable the VisualEditor in your preferences tab, you then can add text, create links, and format your post. Angela Reighard (talk) 03:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Lessons From the Wikipedia Training Modules

The Wikipedia Training For Students program offers extensive information on the ins and outs of Wikipedia. There were a couple elements of the training modules I found to be especially helpful. For instance, the Sandbox feature is a great tool to use as a beginner on Wikipedia. You can experiment and practice using the Wikipedia writing conventions and format before you develop an article on the mainspace. In addition, you can add pages to your Watchlist which notifies you when an article you are contributing to is edited. It also will send you an email updating you on any comments on the talkpage. This is useful in keeping track of the development of an article. The most interesting aspect of the training was the section on the Wikipedia Article Grading Scheme. There are five levels of Wikiepedia articles: Stub, Start, C, B, GA, and FA. Stub articles are very basic and need a lot of work. Similarly, Start articles are incomplete and need references by reliable sources. C and B articles are substantional or mostly complete in their content. GA stands for “good article criteria” and FA refers to articles that have passed the feature article criteria. The only area of the training that was confusing to me was referencing. I am unsure how to add the actual linked citation below the reference section. Overall, the training modules have been very beneficial in understanding the Wikipedia genre. From here, I am confident that we will be able to develop our articles effectively and become a part of the Wikipedia community. Angela Reighard (talk) 03:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

You did an really good job of summing up this whole training experience well. It made it hard for me to do my comment without repeating everything you said. Malcolm Pullom (talk) 04:00, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Training Module 3 and 4

These last two modules were titled Editing and Advanced and they covered quite a bit of helpful information. From these module I was able to learn how to make text bold and create links, both of which will be very helpful in project three when I begin editing my chosen Wikipedia page.Another interesting thing that was covered was the watchlist, that allows users to get updates on pages of their choosing and keep tabs on previous articles if that is something they want to do. The modules also detail how to manage this list and states that users can set their personal preferences and chose how they are alerted to activity on the page. Another thing I found very interesting was the information on the Sandbox. The Sandbox is a place where users can preform practice edits and perfect what they want to add to a page prior to adding it to that page. They also advise posting a link to your Sandbox on the talk page so as to be polite to other editors and also to gain helpful feedback on the edits you plan to make before actually posting them to the formal Wikipedia page. Another thing that was talked about was the different ways that people are involved with Wikipedia and the different extent to witch these individuals get involved with different aspects of Wikipedia, such as corrections, creating new pages, working to advise other editors, or monitoring for bad or offensive edits. Overall these two modules were very interesting and helpful. AKrahe (talk) 05:08, 18 July 2014 (UTC)AKrahe

I also found the Sandbox tutorial very interesting, I too enjoy how Sandbox is a place to perfect what you want to add to an article before actually doing so. TayMills (talk) 17:44, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Training Module 3 and 4

These last two modules have been extremely helpful in finding out more about Wikipedia and how to edit pages. I like that module 3 started by showing how to bold texts, add bullets, links, and references, after creating an account. It started simple and by learning how to accomplish little things, you can learn the bigger things. It goes on to explain how to use wikicode and visual editor and the pros and cons of both. It clearly shows you the codes to use to make words appear, as you want them to. Adding references, citing and links are harder than I imagined it would be, but simple at the same time. Talk pages are an interesting and seemingly working idea. For users to be able to connect to a discussion, but also be so far away from one another is amazing. The personal watch list is much like a favorites tab on the Internet. It helps keep track of the pages in which you visit and take interest in. It was shocking to learn that there are only 30,000 wikiusers. There are more students at this college than that and this is a worldwide website that is very common and well known. I didn’t realize finding a topic to edit would be so complicated, but after reading through module 4, I’m not sure which article I would choose. The most important aspect would be having reliable sources and evidence to back up whatever you were writing about. They have so many improvement techniques and advice to help you through your writing process. Adding images to pages, citing books, and editing medical pages are last to be explained and seem tough to do as a new wikiuser. I think these 4 modules have gave a detailed explanation of what to do when wanting to edit a page or create one.JonieXie (talk) 15:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I found training modules 3 and 4 very interesting. They discussed how to make a link to a page in one section of the training. I had already felt that already knew how to make a link, but was always confused when I would press a link and it would go to a related page, but not the exact page the link claimed to be. So I found it interesting that it was a simple code to do that I also learned how to do sections and subsections, which I think will be critical for editing my chosen article later in the class. The references section was very confusing to me at first, but I feel that it is a valuable skill that I will learn as I work at it. I had always wondered and been confused at how images were inserted into Wikipedia. I have often gone to edit pages and been lost at how they were involved. After seeing this module I see how it is done and am excited to try it. Overall this article in Wikipedia was very interesting an feel that it will soon be something I start to develop a skill at as I edit for this class and beyond.ATBeach (talk) 18:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia Training Modules 3 and 4

There are many things that I did not know how to do on Wikipedia that these modules taught me to do. Some of these include bolding text and italicizing text, along with some other features. Another feature that I did not know how to do until these modules was the sandbox feature. As a matter of fact, I had never even heard of it until it was said in class. I think that this is a helpful feature to talk about on the modules because it is something that not a lot of people know about, as well as being a good tool to help people understand Wikipedia. One more feature that I learned was how to create a link to another page within the page. Besides just the different features, the modules also discuss how there is a grading scale for the articles. This is important because it will show the most important articles and how the match up to the other ones. I thought these modules were very helpful and they will definitely help in the future article writing. E.Kassel (talk) 20:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Modules Three and Four

Just like everyone else, modules three and four gave me insight into how to do certain things within the editor. All of these things are extremely important as wikipedians use them on a consistent basis. These tools include but are not limited to; learning how to bold something, learning how to italicize words, and finally linking things to one another with the use of wikilinks. As we have studied the genre of wikipedia, we have learned that these all have their rules for usage and serve different purposes. The videos were surprisingly helpful and I actually enjoyed watching them which is something that surprised me. I also really enjoyed learning about the different article classifications and the differences between them such as what is the difference between a "good article" and a "featured article". I had started to learn some of this the other day when I was looking for a stub article for Project 3 but it was nice to get a more complete understanding of the rankings. ZackaryMullikin (talk) 21:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Training Modules 3 & 4

There was plenty of useful information in training modules 3 and 4. If I had to choose a favorite section I’d say I most enjoyed learning about the workings of the watch list. I was actually wondering if there was a way that you could track changes to certain pages and it turns out there is. The watch list is an obvious necessity for any Wikipedian. It allows them to keep an eye on pages that they have contributed to or have a particular interest in. I like that the watch list can send notifications when there is activity on the talk pages of articles because it can be kind of easy to forget to check the talk page for activity. I also thought it was very useful to learn about some of the basic text effects such as making words bold or hyperlinks. Wikilinks are especially important. In my opinion it is the best feature of Wikipedia. It enables knowledge seekers to surf from page to page for hours. I have some minor experience working with code so I feel pretty comfortable using these effects to enhance articles that I will contribute to in the future. Mkak8 (talk) 21:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

“Sandbox love never dies” Jennifer's Body

Modules 3 & 4 were by far the most helpful in my orientation to Wikipedia. Most of my time was spent playing around in my personal sandbox to get experience editing within the site. The sandbox was mentioned several times throughout the module and is an important feature an editor should utilize. It is best used for experimenting with edits, planning articles, or beginning a new article before moving it to the articles “mainspace”. The sandbox can be especially useful when editing a start or stub page. The training module made an important note, if using a sandbox for editing, place a notice on the talk page with a link to allow other editors to view the work you’re doing. Because of my inexperience editing code, I think the VisualEditor is a tool I will use for quick edits of an article. However, the reference tool within the editor is still in beta mode. For this task, the cite gadget can be helpful for adding references to an article. Referencing an article is imperative to the longevity of an article or edit. In fact, Wikipedia no longer accepts new articles about people unless they are referenced. This was surprising to me at first but it makes sense because of the vast database contained on the site. Another thing I will be using for Project 3 is the Personal Watchlist. This tool allows you to track changes to articles you are contributing to. Cf105308 (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Modules 3 and 4

Out of all the modules these two were definitely the most important and helpful ones to go through especially module 3 which explains the most common coding tools you can use in editing such as the wikilink or how to bold or italicize words. Module 3 also taught me how useful sandbox is when editing pages. I found all the codes very interesting like putting a image onto a page which I thought was just copy and pasting the image, but it is an entire code you have to enter onto the page to get the image to pop up which was very cool. I found the module interesting because it was really the first time I used code like this, but I also found it overwhelming because it seems like there is a lot of code for a lot of things you create on a Wikipedia page, but with practice I am sure that it will come a lot easier in time. Module 4 was also a good learning module because it teaches you what to edit and what not to and that's very important when you are first starting out as an editor in Wikipedia. It also taught me how to discuss your edits constructively and also how to seek help in Wikipedia which are both very useful things to learn when I begin editing the article for our next project. All and all I found all the modules to be very useful and almost something you need to go through in order to write in Wikipedia. MattSchimm (talk) 21:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

How to become a Wikipedian

Wikipedia does an excellent job of showing you the inner working of the sight and how to edit, format and contribute information. I like how they allow you to experiment with the sandbox, bolding and other types of editing trick. Wikipedia includes all types of learners in this training module so people who are auditory, hands on or visual learners can all learn to the best of their ability. Everything is broken down to such a simplistic state that allows for even the non-computer people to grasp the information and apply it. The different levels of completeness of pages from Stub through FA. In all I have learned a lot from the Wikipedia training sessions. Im excited to start my first contribution to a wiki page. Malcolm Pullom (talk) 03:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

References

Angela Reighard (talk) 03:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

References

Brendan.Hunstad (talk) 19:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

"Googlepedia: Turning Information Behaviors into Research Skills"

For Wednesday, Read McClure's "Googlepedia: Turning Information Behaviors into Research Skills," then respond to the below prompt. Remember to title your post and/or respond to a classmate. Don't forget to sign your response with four tildes.

How often do you perform research for other classes? What is your process like? Where do you start/finish? Finally, what did you learn form McClure that you can apply to this research process in order to be a better researcher? 200 words before class Wedneday.

Researching Skills

With me being a Health Service Administration major, I do a lot of research. It is pretty normal for any of the classes I have to take to have one to five papers to write! Last semester I had a class that had a one thousand word essay due every Monday before class, however I really enjoyed doing these papers because the professor gave us a broad topic and let us find a focus that we wanted to talk about within the wide ranging subject. My process for writing includes a mixture of what I have learned over the years; I start with what I was taught in middle school; to create a web, with what the focus of my paper is in the center and branch out from there to discuss the more focused topics of my papers. From there I usually start with the body of my paper, I feel like I always have a better understanding of what I want the main points of my essays and papers to say, but I have a harder time finding out how I want the paper to start whether it be with a fact of an interesting story. What I learned from McClure’s “Googlepedia: Turning Information Behaviors into Research Skills” will help me to develop my writing even more. I found that when I was reading I too do as Susan and Edward, I start mainly with googling the topic of my paper and if Wikipedia is one of the first options to pop up I will go to it and skim over it. (Partly because most professors wouldn't like me to use Wikipedia). The best part of McClure’s writing is the eight step writing and research process he discusses. I also enjoyed the section on putting your sources to the CRAAP test. So simple to remember and can really make the research much more sound and strong. Over all I really enjoyed reading this piece and certainly think that it will improve my research skills! Eh598110 (talk) 16:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I also seem to take the classes that require a lot of writing or essay/research paper assignments. And I always feel a little self-conscious when the papers I hand in are much larger or longer than other students. Maybe it’s because of my personal process to writing. Primarily it involves sitting down to do complete the task in one single attempt usually starting the day or night before it is due. I have tried your method like they taught us in grade school but I’m not much for writing multiple drafts. I begin with by developing my thesis statement and then an intro leading up to it. I use this as my direction and create my supporting topics that I want to include and prioritize them. Then it’s as simple as knocking them out one by one; look at the topic, do as much research as I can to find as much information to support my thesis and create a reference page, decide what to include and type it out until I’m satisfied marking areas for citation, then move to the next topic. Once they’re finished I quickly write a conclusion that restates my hypothesis and summarizes my driving point. Usually when I reach this part I’m strung out on the paper that I’m just ready to be finished. But lastly I go back and add my in-text citations. This has worked out well for me in the past usually scoring A’s and B’s, I sometimes wonder how much was actually read and not just assumed to be good, but this year I began spacing them out and starting on them earlier and taking more time to hopefully develop better rounded assignments.Brendan.Hunstad (talk) 20:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The Research Process

During my time here at Ohio University I have not done a ton of research. I did a project for my freshmen English and then a few informal ones for my Bio classes. The process of researching always starts the same though no matter what class I am researching for. I would start by Googling to see the general idea of a topic and get a variety of sources from that. McClure talks about this process and wants us to make sure what we are looking at is really credible. He says, “A texts credibility is your credibility”. In this he is saying that whatever documents you think are credible are only so if you make sure you are. This made me aware that I should really double check the sources I am using for my information and make sure all the facts line up. For my research in the future I think I have the right process of looking up information but need to be careful of who I am getting the information from.Alliemarie101 (talk) 18:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Internet Research

For my major, research papers are fairly common and they are usually the most time consuming assignments. Because I have always been told that Google and Wikipedia are not reliable sources, I usually start with the a database. I basically use it in the same way as other search engines, by starting with the key term and exploring other suggestions. Many times I only used articles I find on a database or on well known reputable sites. This article had a lot of good advice about correct uses of Google and Wikipedia. They should be used as starting points and a gateway to other ideas. Wikipedia is a great way to get an overview of the basic material but it also gives you the opportunity to explore and branch out easily. This article also offers some good tips for narrowing searches on Google. The main thing I took from this article was making sure to ensure credibility for my sources. I never take the extra time to research or evaluate my sources, which the annotative bibliography should help with.184.57.88.10 (talk) 15:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)jp302408

Performing Research

Through my college career almost every class I’ve taken has required some kind of research to be done. Whether it was for writing a paper, doing a project or just simply to understand a subject at a better level. I have spent a lot of time searching the web for credible sources. Usually I start by typing the topic I am researching about, into Google. I’ve always tried to avoid using Wikipedia as the sole source for information, however I would often compare other sources to the Wikipedia article on the topic I was researching. Most of the time Wikipedia was very accurate and helpful. I usually try to aim for websites with .edu or .org in the URL. Mcclure’s article has opened up a different point of view on research and credibility to me. He states that understanding the credentials of the author or source is very important. This is eye opening to me, because I have never really paid attention to who was writing or creating the information I was using. Most of the time I would just assume that it is credible depending on where I am pulling the information. This shows that even if I am using Wikipedia, with the right author, the information could be even more credible than an educational website. TayMills (talk) 23:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Research Skills on the Internet

Throughout my years of schooling, I have spent a ton of time doing research on the Internet for different papers and projects. Over just the past four years, I have done a huge amount of research, most likely equaling the amount that I did during grade school. My process is that I start with my topic and find random but credible websites that give me enough information to begin my research. I was always taught to not use Wikipedia since anyone can make edits, so I never really used that as one of my research websites. As I continue my research and go further down on the Google search, the websites sometimes get less credible so I put in another version of my topic to the search bar and go from there. In the reading, McClure says that we should make sure that sites are credible, because “A text’s credibility is your credibility.” If we as the researcher say something is credible and use it, then it is on us to make sure that: 1) it is credible, and 2) that we are telling people correct information and not something that someone made up. I think that this is important because you do not want to tell people wrong information. McClure makes a lot of good points and really explains the important of research skills. E.Kassel (talk) 00:04, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Internet Research

As a senior college student I have done a lot of research for the past four years. I of course like many college students use search engines and Wikipedia on a daily bases for each of my classes. My process begins by searching the topic, finding basic information and eventually picking reliable sources to get information. It usually ends with me having a “go-to” web page or a general understanding of what I wanted to know. I learned that Google and Wikipedia cannot always be trusted and although are good ways to start research they cannot always give reliable information. I also realize that I too am one of the people that read something on the Internet quickly, assumes it to be fact, and cites it. McClure teaches what I have heard before, it is okay to do this to start but after that I need to go deeper. I think in future research I will take this advice and do “laid-back” research, using Wikipedia, not verifying sources until I get deeper in the process and feel more comfortable with my own understanding of the subject. I feel this will allow me to see multiple view points on topics, until I can confirm the accurate ones after being submerged in the atmosphere of the subject.ATBeach (talk) 23:25, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Research Skills

This article immediately held my attention because it made me think about what I would do without the Internet. In terms of everyday life, school, work, etc., the Internet helps me in all areas. Research, although it consists of books, media, and film, are all available online, while the Internet is still a form of research itself. There is an online version for everything. Sadly, I can’t imagine what writing research papers would be like without the Internet. An important point made is that sources in books are more reliable than those from the Internet, no matter what website is being used. It is unsettling that most information found on the Web can be altered with little problems in modern times where people are more technologically advanced than in the past. The eight-step process given to avoid getting faulty information is helpful and can make for a much better research paper when using online sources. I have never heard of the Googlepedia remix described, but I have certainly done this when writing research papers without knowing there was a name for it. I think that with this ladder of researching combined with incorporating supporting sources from libraries is a great way to balance and move away from consistent use of only online resources. The Internet has made things much easier which is what technology is basically for. I pay bills online, do homework and turn it in online, watch movies online, and shop online. Although the Internet has made life easier for most people today, books are still valuable for the information they hold and this information should be told and retold through research papers we now turn to the Web for. I think the Internet will only increase in it’s use in everyday things, but hopefully books and other older forms of research will not be forgotten.JonieXie (talk) 02:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Research

I am a Social Work major so most of my classes have me write analysis of other research on topics rather than actually perform research though I do write about 1 research paper a semester. They usually involve social topics like researching a social policy or study on behavior, but a few classes I can choose whatever I want to. I usually start out my research by going to the article database on the library website and searching keywords that could bring up good articles for the topic I am researching. At first I usually focus on other studies on the subject, if there are any to get a feel about what professional researchers are finding out about my topic. They are usually useful in providing a lot of the statistics I use and more search terms. I then look up the topic on google to get a more broad understanding of the topic. I kind of do my research backwards after reading this article, but I feel that it is useful because the stats that I obtain are usually useful when reading about the subject broadly second. I learned a few new techniques through the article that kind of goes more in depth with what we have been learning in class such as using Wikipedia to find more sources which I will definitely find useful in future research and I also learned how some tables on the internet can be misleading and not to jump to a conclusion too fast. I found this article very useful for future research and goes deeper into things that I already know and it gives me a better understanding of those topics. MattSchimm (talk) 13:40, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

McClure

Most of the classes that I take are either History classes or education classes. I do not do a lot of research for my education class but most of my history classes have required at least two papers per class. All of these papers have required research.We usually are required to read and use a book so that is usually my starting point. I look at the sources they use and see if maybe I can use one of those. I usually then use wikipedia to gain some basic overall knowledge about the topic or to refresh some information I may have forgotten. Finally, I use the university data base to help primary and secondary sources to help fill out my paper. Most of the things McClure talked about I already knew or already did. For example, as I said earlier I use Wikipedia to help deepen my understanding of the material. We spent a lot of time in high school learning why we needed to have credible resources for our research papers and why websites had to end in .org or .edu. I really enjoyed McClure's section titled A Text's Credibility is your Credibility. Its something that I sort of knew I guess, but it's not something that I have sat down and thought about. It really showed me just how important the credibility of your sources can be. ZackaryMullikin (talk) 19:58, 23 July 2014 (UTC) 15:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Research Process

As a Forensic Chemistry major, I do a lot of research for my lab reports. I use Google to find sources for my papers, typically using the .org, .edu, or .gov rule. This is basically that the most credible sources are from these kinds of websites since anyone can have a .com website address. Usually these sources have a pretty good amount of information that can be used in my papers. The biggest thing professors tell you is that you shouldn’t use Wikipedia, contrary to what we have learned in this class. So far in class and in the McClure article, we have learned that it is okay to use Wikipedia as long as we are using it as a gateway search to more credible sources. Another point that McClure makes in the article is that you have to check the credibility of the writer of the piece. I had never really thought about researching the writer as long as the website the article is published on is a credible website. Overall, the article taught me more about the credibility of sources and that the “text’s credibility is [my] credibility.” Allyleah817 (talk) 16:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Performing Research

As an Information & Telecommunications student here at Ohio University I have not done an enormous amount of research. I have a feeling that as I progress further in my major I will be required to perform more research. However, this previous summer session I took a statistics course in the psychology department. For this class we were required to perform some research on our own and analyze the results statistically. This type of research, however, is not the same as finding sources, integrating their content in to a well written paper, and then correctly citing all references. Although it may not be frequent, I have done this type of research many times in High School and College. My process is to outline the general topic of each body paragraph, then find sources that fit with what I am trying to convey, then I write, quote a source, and write some more. I feel the process is simple and works for me. I don’t like to overcomplicate the process. I thought that McClure was very insightful when he talked about checking the credentials of the author. In this digital world anyone can use the internet as a soap box and it is important to ensure the credibility of the author. Mkak8 (talk) 17:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

My Research Process

McClure explains that using a blended research process, starting with google and Wikipedia and ending in university library resources is the best method for utilizing the knowledge available in the Googlepedia world. I believe the research process I do reflects some of McClures methods. The research I do for other classes begins in different places (sites) depending on the genre I will be writing for, or the context for which I will apply said knowledge (clinical practice). My field of study has a heavy medical component and the importance of evidence based practices is at its peak. Because of this, there is not a day since I joined my AT program that I am not researching some topic online. If I am writing a research paper for a project I find it best to start with google and the wiki article as a broad overview on the subject. I have found starting with a scholarly journal article search is often too precise in the results it yields. Using wiki as a starting ground helps me choose which keywords are necessary to input into the ArticlesPlus search on the OU library website. Early in my academic career I would begin with a google search (or google scholar) and end up frustrated by inaccessibility to articles I found. Using the library’s search tool was a quick and easy fix to this dilemma. Another skill I have found necessary to my research process is having a high level of understanding for which sources are authoritative and accurate, so I can easily weed out unreliable results google has returned. I found McClure’s CRAAP acronym easy to remember and helpful for evaluating sources. Before reading the article I used the AA part, but the addition of the other criteria for evaluating will improve my research quality in the future. Cf105308 (talk) 18:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Internet and Research

Throughout my high school career my teachers would never let us use Wikipedia on our research papers and we had to use government based web sites that could show us links to different articles and publications. McClure talks about how Wikipedia is not a credible source but it is a gateway to different references and is just a jumping off point because more often than not we don’t always know much about the topic and need an overview and links to references for deeper and detailed information. I know Wikipedia and some google sights can’t be used for a source in a research nor can they be trusted. However both googlepedia is a good starting point to get pointed in the general direction and I think McClure makes a good point about this in his article. Malcolm Pullom (talk) 19:40, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

My Experience With Research

Given the fact I’m a journalism major and political science minor, I am constantly researching for my classes. For upper-level political science, you often write extensive research papers. Because of this, I am fairly literate with the library’s databases. I’ve used Alice Catalog, JSTOR, and LexisNexis numerous times. In addition, my work at WOUB forces me to research frequently on many platforms. However, this is mostly “presearch” before I go out and do a story.

My experience has allowed me to develop somewhat of a researching process. McClure says that many students start on Wikipedia to get an idea of a topic, then move to Google/Google Scholar. I think this is a fair assumption to make as I follow that pattern myself. However, I also use the library databases, which was McClure’s suggestion. The library databases are usually my last step in the researching process. I first get an idea of potential search terms etc., then use those terms on the library database.

McClure offered some great advice on the researching process. For one, I like the tip that if you use quotation marks around your Google search, you can manage the number of results. Similarly, you need to use multiple search terms in order to do the best research. The CRAAP test was also useful in evaluating your sources. McClure describes this criteria as currency, relevance, authority, accuracy, and purpose. Angela Reighard (talk) 19:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Critical Media Project: Identity, Ideology, and Media

Explore the Critical Media Project website and read the article on "Key Concepts". Next, read the sections addressing particular identity categories of race & ethnicity, class, gender, and sexuality.

Once you've read these sections, respond to the following prompt. In the "Key Concepts" article, the author assert that "If our identities are socially constructed, then they are not neutral." What do they mean by "socially constructed"? Check out Wikipedia's entry on Social Constructionism to get a better understanding of this concept. How are our identities shaped and influenced by the media? How does this process play out in one of the identity categories examined in this website (race & ethnicity, class, gender, sexuality)? At least 300 words before 6pm Friday and and a response to another's post. Be sure to sign both with four tildes. Matthewvetter (talk) 12:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

"Social Construction"

Social constructed is when you are not thinking as one instead as a group thee is a general consensus and idea. I think the media is the biggest influence on our identities. The media is able to use rhetoric, as we learned about before, to influence us on the way things are supposed to be. These "things' are not just influencing us to buy a certain product or dress a certain way but the media is showing us if you wear a dress that makes you feminine and therefore it is controlling how we think. Since the population as a whole is surrounded by the media we are constantly being exposed to these categories we should fit into. I think this is the easiest to see with gender. Take something as simple as a magazine one that both women and men would read. In this magazine you would probably find an add for Ax or cologne. Both of these ads would probably display a attractive or successful looking male. The media can use these kinds of ads to influence the way we think because that ad without using any words would be inferring to you that you could be that attractive or successful if you had that cologne. If you look at women's magazines they are plastered with ads showing us how we should look, act and who to be around. These influences from the media can be subtle but they show us how we should act to fit our roles. You wear a dress to look more feminine or basket ball shorts to look manly. We are are constantly stereotyping, categorizing and generalizing things to make them fit a certain mold and these are widely influenced by the media. Alliemarie101 (talk) 20:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

@Alliemarie101: Nice post. What a terrific realization about advertising. Not only do ads influence the way we think. They can influence the types of identities we can adopt, especially in terms of gender. When companies try to sell us a product, they're also trying to sell us a certain identity. Matthewvetter (talk) 01:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

The Shape of Identity

A huge part of being human is figuring out who you are. The way we do that is through analyzing others and then comparing ourselves to the results. The media isn't really at fault if we let it determine for us who we are and who those around us are. The media is, however, all around us and permeates every aspect of our lives. It is hard to distinguish your own thoughts about identity from those put there by the media sometimes. Books, film, music, art, news, advertising, and other types of media are hard to escape from; they are literally around every corner, pushing their constructs upon us. Not all identity formed by the media is negative, which probably leads us to believe in what it tells us more. Women, for example, in recent times, have been subject to empowerment by many venues of the media. Dove commercials come to mind.

Identity isn't something that simply occurs to a person, it is shaped over time through our experiences. With the simple flip of a TV channel, click of a link, or turn of the radio knob, there are a million different identity models presented to us. An easy example on the lines of gender would be browsing any magazine rack at your local store. Almost every cover features some story of the dangers of becoming fat and old for women (as if any woman has a great chance of escaping those two things). If you view yourself as too fat or too old, in light of these depictions, that plays in to how you see yourself on the whole. In the age of the internet, it can be said that "you are what you post." Today, social media plays a role in the individuals we are and the personas we create. I once had a guy, who I had never met, tell me that I was "really cool." When I asked him why he thought that when he didn't even know me, he said that he had looked at my profile and read my posts on Facebook. It's weird to think of social media as so justifiably self-reflective that someone could actually think they know who you are by one or two pages, but it happens to us all. When I listen to my favorite band, sometimes I catch myself thinking "I bet we would be friends." But that is a ridiculous notion. The type of music you make may very well not correlate at all to a lot of other factors of personality crucial to a friendship. On Facebook, you post pictures and list interests you think reflect you then post statuses about something that not only interests you, but something you think others will want to read too. Future posts are shaped depending on the feedback you receive, which ultimately shapes who you are. Positive feedback equates to confidence, while negative equates to shame. Over time, these feelings can shape our identity - are you seen as "cool" to others or "weird"?65.186.91.57 (talk) 22:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)emgiunta

@Emgiunta: I like how you talk about identity: "Identity isn't something that simply occurs to a person, it is shaped over time through our experiences." We tend to think of identity as essential to ourselves. Something that is inseparable, inherent and stable. In fact, our identities are formed and reformed through, as you say, our experiences, and the language and rhetoric that surrounds us. To put it another way, we are written by the communities, media, and experiences we engage in. Matthewvetter (talk) 01:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

The Social Construct and It's Influence on Class

In the article, the term “socially constructed” refers to the idea that, as humans, our reality and understanding of the world around us is not just constructed within our own thoughts, it is constructed by using our view of the world and how it works to develop that understanding. As the Wikipedia article states, “it assumes that understanding, significance, and meaning are developed…in coordination with other human beings.” I really like this quote because it tells us that, whether we like it or not, the people around us really are making an impact on our lives without even trying. The media plays in to this because when we are exposed to the news or TV shows, it shapes how we see the world as a whole instead of just what we are able to see in our everyday lives. So the media really expands our social construct beyond just where we are able to travel, our hometowns, and Athens.

I chose to read about the class category on the website. When you first click on this category, the first thing that comes up is 16 and Pregnant, which is a show on MTV. From what I’ve seen of the show, most of the teen moms that they decide to follow are usually lower middle class and have way more family drama than most American families. They always show how they are getting into arguments with everyone and how it never works out between the mom and the father of the child. In reality, I know a few “teen moms” that I went to school with in an upper middle class city. One of the girls now has a one-year-old and just got married to the child’s father and both are decently successful for being 21 now. Just this example shows that the stereotype that MTV uses to create a more dramatic show isn’t necessarily true for the everyday American. This shows how the media influences our social construct because if you don’t know a successful “teen mom” then you might believe the stereotype they show on TV. Allyleah817 (talk) 14:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Ally,

I really liked the part where you said that MTV likes the make the stories of the families more dramatic, I couldn't agree more. But to make "good tv" you have to spice it up.. and apparently spicing things up means only depicting the stereotype and not the reality even though its called reality tv. Eh598110 (talk) 14:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

@Allyleah817: I was reading through some of the class' responses for this week when deciding on which one to reply to when I noticed that you and I had very similar understandings of the social constructionism theory. It made sense to me when I read the Wikipedia article and seemed pretty straightforward but I noticed that many other students had a much different interpretation. I just found that interesting. Also, yes it is frustrating how the media constantly portrays extreme ends of the spectrum to elicit ratings. Mkak8 (talk) 21:40, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Social Construct

After reading the article on Key Concepts, race and ethnicity, class, gender, sexuality and Wikipedia’s page on social constructionism I think I have a better understanding of what this discussion prompt is about. Not only does all of this tie together in this discussion but I can also see how it ties into the class as a whole, being from Appalachia gives us a stereotype. However these articles show us that not only does where we are from stereotype us but there are a lot of other factors that can as well. Our identities are very much influenced by the media, as well as our beliefs about other races, ethnicities, class, gender and sex. Instead of using an Appalachian stereotype because it’s become repetitive, I will use the stereotype about New Jersey. The media has definitely taken advantage of its viewers because there are a lot of tv reality shows that come from New Jersey, such as the Jersey Shore, The Real Housewives of New Jersey, Cake Boss, The Sopranos, and Jerseylicious. (most of which I watch, however I really shouldn’t say that because what does this REALLY say about me?) Take Jersey Shore for example, it’s a bunch of mid 20 somethings all meeting at a beach house to party and cause drama all summer, they depict the usual guido and guidette (a derogatory term used to describe a working class, urban Italian American) what does this really say about their race/ethnicity, class, or gender? The media depicts them this way, maybe they are like that in real life, not everyone from New Jersey is like this, but why is this the only depiction that is being portrayed on television? Because that’s what the media wants us to believe. Social constructionism plays a major part in everyone’s lives, even if they don’t believe it, before we had a say in what people think is right and wrong our parents influenced our opinions. Eh598110 (talk) 14:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I liked that you tied Appalachia into this discussion. It was clear when reading the website that stereotypes of Appalachians are directly linked to social constructionism. Because the media buys into the "American Dream," we often see lower class people being described as simply lazy. When I was researching for Project 3 I found a scholarly source that said oftentimes the Appalachian region is neglected politically due to stereotypes in the media. The media tells us that if you are poor, it is because you didn't work hard enough. This is a troublesome theory because it neglects identity all together. It is important for the media to consider how socially constructed identities limit the opportunities many groups have. This is especially important for the Appalachian region. Angela Reighard (talk) 17:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

@Eh598110: I like how clearly you recognize the media's influence on not only our identities, but our beliefs about others' identities as well. This is an important realization that begins the work of breaking down some of the structural hierarchies in our society that provide access to goods and wealth to some and not to others. But I also think, once you realize that our realities (identities, beliefs, the way we interpret our experience) are influenced by the media (and more largely by all types of "texts") you can also realize that we have a part to play in those constructions. I guess this really speaks to some of the learning outcomes for this course:

First, I want you all to "gain an understanding of texts and writing as tools that mediate social realities (identities, stereotypes, beliefs, attitudes), especially texts/media that contribute to our experience with and understanding of the region and culture of Appalachia/Southeast Ohio."

@Eh598110: The New Jersey "guido" is definitely a stereotype shaped and exacerbated by the media. The New Jersey Housewives are IAPs (Italian American Princess) who all have outrageous tempers, dress super sexy, are tanned to that slight-orange glow, and are married to gelled, muscle-head, secret members of the bob. The Long Island Medium has the biggest hair, longest nails, and raspiest Jersey accent of all time. The Jersey Shore girls and guys are clique of rich-kid brats who get paid to get wasted and fist pump every night. So everyone from New Jersey MUST be like these people, right? Obviously, if you really think about it, there is no way a state of 8-some million people is chock full of loud, obnoxious, blinged-out douchebags from Italian heritage. But that is how they're portrayed. 65.186.91.57 (talk) 21:42, 1 August 2014 (UTC)emgiunta

But I also want you (and by you I mean everyone in the class) to realize that, by becoming producers (rather than just consumers) of language/media/texts, you have the capability to enact new/different realities, that might serve to represent identity categories in more complex ways. Our work in Wikipedia is one example of this: we're trying to counteract some of the negative depictions of Appalachia by filling in some of the gaps on Wikipedia, and providing a fuller representation of Appalachian culture, people, places, etc.Matthewvetter (talk) 19:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Media Literacy and the Politics of Identity

The Critical Media Project aims to promote media literacy by focusing on the “politics of identity.” There are four main categories outlined on the website including race and ethnicity, class, gender, and sexuality. The common theme among these categories is that they all contribute to our overall identity, an identity that is socially constructed. How we identify ourselves is based largely on how society sees us. Are we defined by our race, ethnicity, class, gender, or sexuality? Social constructionism refers to the way we understand the world. The media is a big player in social constructionism. Our understanding of identity is often shaped through images and words in the media. Is the media creating our identity, or reflecting it? This is an important question to consider. The media, in an effort to represent America as a whole, relies on generalizations. This is troublesome as it most often results inaccurate stereotyping. The media is creating an idea of “what is normal.” Anyone that appears to be outside of this “normal” spectrum is discriminated against. We see this played out in sexism, racism, heterosexism, and classism.

The relationship between the media and class is particularly interesting. In America, your social class dictates much of the opportunities you are given whether it is in the workplace, at school, or in social situations. There is a hierarchical structure that separates America between the “haves” and “have nots.” This system of meritocracy says that you get what you work for. This is exemplified through the “American Dream.” The media (as a whole) subscribes to the “American Dream” which says if you work hard enough, you will be successful. This is problematic because what we see on television tells us that upper class people are hard workers and lower class people are lazy. There is a stereotypical binary system that many Americans buy into. Media literacy is vital when it comes to issues of race, ethnicity, class, gender, and sexuality. If we are not aware of how identity is socially constructed then we are subject to having a warped view of the world. Angela Reighard (talk) 17:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

@Angela Reighard: I like your thinking about the rhetoric surrounding poverty in our culture. We live in a time of such wealth disparity, but so many people are able to ignore this disparity by focusing on, as you call it, "American Dream" ideology of equal opportunity and equal access to wealth and knowledge. For many social groups, access to wealth and knowledge is harder to come by. Matthewvetter (talk) 19:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Critical Media Project

The idea of self-identity and knowing whom you are and where you came from is a concept that is extremely distorted through the media. This article gives examples of how the media depicts self-identities and turns them into a cultural reference or stereotypical identity instead of one having their own. This is to say that people of the same ethnicity and skin color have the same self-identity; this is not true, because of the other factors that make up self identity, but generally this comes from what ethnicity or country you are from. The media plays on this hoping to draw in these people. Masculinity, femininity, class, gender, etc. also have roles in determining self-identity. The media uses these characteristics to attract a certain type of person depending on the type of media. This website gives an example of 27 dresses as a movie that has a more feminine feel and a movie that most guys would not go see unless roped into by their girlfriend. The media’s target was a single or dating woman so that they can relate to the film. The media’s ability to play off of everyone’s self-identity is extreme, but where would we be without our movies, music, social media sites, commercials, etc.? Although, the media does some destruction when trying to evoke a certain race or gender, it is what people want; something to relate to. I think working and lower class are depicted in films and television just as much as gender and race. Where a person/character lives, works, eats, and who their family might be are definite characteristics that would go into defining a self-identity. No matter the film or television show, the environment that one inhabits says a lot about the person. Background information is a key necessity in identifying with oneself. Some people feel as though they are grouped in with others’ self-identity based on their culture or race, but without factoring in one’s personal qualities, self-identity is more of a group identity. JonieXie (talk) 17:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

@JonieXie: I think it's a smart impulse to point out that the media's not always destructive or negative. In many cases, television and other media forms allow for people to relate to identities that they might not have access to otherwise. I don't think the goal of the Critical Media Project is to disavow media completely because of the negative effect it can have on our social hierarchies and relations. Rather, I think the goal is to be mindful and "critical" of what is out there. Nice post. Matthewvetter (talk) 19:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Media Influence on Social Construction

When the author states that identities are “Socially Structured” I feel he means that society compiles our beliefs of our identities. This means that we see ourselves as society teaches us to see our selves. An example is I may think that I am a weaker physical person, but due to societies influence I feel this is a feminine trait. Had my belief not been social constructed I would have probably considered myself masculine in all areas. I feel our identities our heavily shaped and influenced by the world around us. Being a male, I will see other men on TV talking sports on TV and will feel the need to be well conversed in athletics if I am going to be “manly”. I may also see a woman wear make-up and feel I am to avoid make-up at all cost to avoid being “womanly”. These are examples of how this media process plays out in gender and sexuality. The more severe version is other people around me also get ideas like this from the media and social construction. This means that these thoughts and feelings become part of everyday life for me will constantly surround me. If the media convinces a friend of mine that looking their face in the mirror is something that a woman does by only portraying women looking at themselves in mirrors or having jokes about men doing it, my friend may get the idea that, this act is not something a man does. Therefore, if I look in a mirror to fix my teeth my friend may declare me to be acting like a woman and shying me away from ever looking at my reflection again. We are socially constructed by the media to categorize certain behaviors into categories, something men do something women do. If we want to avoid being labeled by one, we avoid acting like it.-ATBeach (talk) 20:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I really liked how you said society teaches us to see ourselves a certain way. I never thought of it like we were being taught to act or be a certain away, instead I was thinking of it as being influenced by the media but i think being taught defiantly represents it better. Alliemarie101 (talk) 20:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I think you show a couple good examples of how important the media plays a role in our society today. Because it’s true that the media really can influence the way we think about everything. Prime example, remember back to the clip of videos we watched the first day of class regarding the “stereotypical Appalachian”. And I can come up with countless examples from other classes and personal experience for any type of identity category. I loved reading these articles because this is the type of stuff I think about everyday; every time I watch TV, a movie, or step foot into Wal-Mart. I personally agree with August Comte that Sociology is the “Queen Science” over any other science because it is the most complex and concrete. And this area of Social Psychology I find really fascinating. What you and these articles describe is along the lines of symbolic interactionism. The most notable founders of this method are George Herbert Mead and Charles Horton Cooley. Mead argued that people are products of social interaction where Cooley developed the “looking glass self” that people grow from interpersonal interaction and believed perceptions of others. When you look at how far technology has advanced it is easy to see how dependent we’ve become on media sources these days. The average American carries a device in their pocket that is equivalent to a dozen electronics just twenty years ago. The access to media is literally at our fingertips. If you look back prior to 50-60 years ago, the average person was limited to their immediate environment. Family, close friends, schoolmates, co-workers, neighbors, and black-and-white television with maybe four channels were their only source of social construction. But jump back to today and think about what limits us, battery life? Studies are being conducted today regarding possible physiological reactions with separation of media devices similar to withdrawal symptoms of drug users. But this isn’t a new dilemma. We humans have been struggling with condition our whole existence. I also have to agree with Cooley when he said “the mind is mental”.Brendan.Hunstad (talk) 21:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Critical Media Project

Identity as a social construct simply means that society helps not only define how we can identify ourselves but it puts limits on the ways we can identify ourselves. It's hard for people to step outside these boundaries as there is usually a lot of negative backlash against the person for not conforming to one of the main identities society has already set up. The media, in particular, is useful for communicating what identities are socially acceptable and which are not. What makes a television show or a movie successful? It needs to find an audience big enough to support it. Often times this is achieved through creating characters that people can see themselves in. This in turn brings everyone together and makes everyone feel good about themselves because their identity has been "approved" by society. They can rest easy now. Media can also tell people how to act through tv, movies, and commercials. Media helps set a precedent for what certain identities "do". For example, media could tell us that "real men" only eat McDonald's. After being bombarded through commercials and other media, men start to mimics this behavior as they do not want to be seen as "unmanly". Another example would be women's magazines deciding what is "beautiful" and what is not. This definitely influences how some women dress, act, and behave. To tie this into the class, media can also help tell us what we are not. For example, if we see the stereotypical redneck on television who is terrorizing a city, we can then compare ourselves to the character. Obviously, we are not that "identity" (at least in this example) and a sort of arrogance and superiority begins to set in because society is showing you either the worst of an identity or is just playing off of stereotypes. This is what can lead to racism and racist acts. ZackaryMullikin (talk) 21:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Social Construction

The reading for today's hybrid assignment talks about social construction and how the media effects that for us. We ass have the basic ideas that set up who we are and how they shape us, such as gender, age, and race. However, the way the media portrays these things shapes how we form as a person. For example, popular TV shows may portray a gay male as being very flamboyant and eccentric, causing people to have an expectation that any gay male will act that way. However, that is not always the case, and may lead to a lot of identity confusion. Even though these stereotypes may not be correct, they still hold a heavy hand in shaping who we are as people. Society tells me that because I am a girl, I should like feminine colors and girly things, and that a male should like masculine things such as cars and lifting weights. Although these standards do not always hold true, they still place ideas in our heads that stick with us for our entire lives. This is a great example of how media holds a large amount of power. As children we are brought into the world as blank slates, we then absorb the world around us and take our shape based on the the people and experiences and culture that come in and out of our lives. Based off of this assertion one could wonder how would we develop if we didn't have the media to tell us how we are supposed to be?AKrahe (talk) 21:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC)AKrahe

Social Construction

“Identity is a socially and historically constructed concept. We learn about our own identity and the identity of others through…media and other connections we make in our everyday life” this quote from the critical media project webpage in the key concepts section. I think sums most of what this webpage is about. Throughout our history we have changed with the times but for the most part we really change with the media and it depiction of a group of people. Before World War II women where depicted as stay at home moms and the men where bread winners. With many men overseas women had taken on the role as the bread winner. Some men could not accept that until the media started to showed women in the work place with characters like Rosie the Riveter and other women propaganda. We (men) later identified women as equals because we (men) were constantly seeing them though the media and it became a norm. Today I feel we are experiencing the same thing with gay rights. Today shows, cartoons, music and other types of media are integrating gay characters and showing them as equals much how women where in during and after World War II. I feel that it has become a norm to see gay in powerful roles in media and are being to be thought of as equals. This is a positive version of social constructionism, however it can be negative. After September 11th 2001 we as an America culture started labeling and thinking all Muslims as terrorist brought to this thinking by media through cartoons, games and the news. Muslims where terrorist in these and always associated with each other. Just like in the Appalachian region media depicts our identity by setting boundaries and through representation either good or bad. Malcolm Pullom (talk) 21:54, 1 August 2014

Social Construction

This article explains socially constructed roles that we acquire in life such as our race, economic status, gender, and so on and how people in those roles should act. The term socially constructed in my own view means that society expects us to do certain things based on defining factors and groups that we fit into. We don’t necessarily need to follow these roles that we are assigned by society, but we risk becoming out casted by society if we do not follow them. They are socially constructed roles because with out society determining them they would not exist. We see theses social roles mainly in the media and I think we see most in gender. From birth we are put into gender roles right away with things such as the color of the blanket that the hospital gives you like blue and pink. We also see it in kids when they play such as a boy receiving a bunch of toy cars or action figures for their birthdays and girls getting a doll to play with. Also in pretend play boys pretend they are cops or firefighters and girls pretend they are teachers generally. It does not have to be this way, but society has constructed the roles of gender and how boys and girls should act. Media plays a major part in the social roles we see in gender also. TV shows often depict couples as the man being the worker of the family and the woman staying at home taking care of the children. It is changing however woman are being depicted as independent and just as capable as a man gradually today. The media also displays ads on how men and women should act in magazines and newspapers. We also see gender roles in the real world with diversity such as wages in the same job being higher for men than women. Like the article was saying we can change these roles with laws such as title s. IX and the civil rights act, but unless society changes its very hard to make a change in these roles.MattSchimm (talk) 21:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

The concept of an individual’s identity being socially constructed means that a person’s ideas, morals, and social environment are created by wider societal practices and norms. Essentially, our family, peers and other influential bodies shape how we see the world and how we choose to present ourselves to the world. The media has the potential to either propagate or subvert a given cultural norm. An interesting concept introduced in the article was whether or not the media reflects ideologies or produces them. As a whole, the media is a self perpetuating institution that helps create social norms but also responds reactively to the same norms. The elements it uses to do so are often subtle enough so the audience is relatively unaware. An example of this would be the clothing designer’s choices made for one character vs another on the same show vs characters on other shows. The visual representation of different ideas and values may seem unimportant to the viewer, but is an important aspect of indirect characterization and development arcs. The site analyzes a variety of identities including race & ethnicity, class, gender, and sexuality and the impact media has upon each category. Media’s impact on gender as a social construct is often overlooked, because of its integration into identity from such a young age. The terms “masculinity” and “femininity” were used to distinguish two distinct categories of characteristics present within gender identity. I found it especially interesting that there is a hierarchical association with the gender values within this country. This means that values associated with masculinity such as strength, independence, production, and rationality are seen as superior when compared to feminine values (weakness, dependence, consumption, and emotion). When an individual does not adhere to their gender role or norm, it is often critized in everyday life. Ex. Telling a young boy to “man up” when he exhibits a weak/sensitive behavior. Accepting these norms as a commonplace in our society is a direct roadblock to a change in culture needed for gender equality. Cf105308 (talk) 22:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Social Constructionism

Social construction is done best when it is done as a group effort rather than individually. Social construction is joint understandings of the world, where these understandings are developed within other human beings. The theory states that human beings create an image and reality of the social world and how it works. People having certain assumptions by media, it socially constructs gender and other images that shape and develop the way they think or believe something should be. The world is so manipulated by media in so many different ways. Society as a whole looks at media as a role model and if they don’t live up to those standards, they think something is wrong with them. Gender plays a major role in media today, between feminism and masculinity; the world is molded by the differences in genders, between clothes, behaviors, hobbies, likes and dislikes. Self-identity is something that each individual needs to form and mold by themselves. Media will always play a role in how people do so. As another point of view, media isn’t always guiding people in the wrong ways. Sometimes, media can be very helpful and educational to the real world. Through organizations and different ways that help make people value who they are and help people accept themselves for who they are. Sexism can be very discriminating and demeaning. For example, if a man acts in a way that is even remotely girly, he will most likely get made fun of. Everyone has different behaviors and attributes that make them unique in their own ways. Just because society may stereotype certain behaviors and classify people into categories, doesn’t mean that these assumptions are correct. Stereotypes will always be made and perceived, a lot of the time-media helps mold and create stereotypes.TayMills (talk) 21:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Media Literacy and the Politics of Identity

The Critical Media Project aims to promote media literacy by focusing on the “politics of identity.” There are four main categories outlined on the website including race and ethnicity, class, gender, and sexuality. The common theme among these categories is that they all contribute to our overall identity, an identity that is socially constructed. How we identify ourselves is based largely on how society sees us. Are we defined by our race, ethnicity, class, gender, or sexuality? Social constructionism refers to the way we understand the world. The media is a big player in social constructionism. Our understanding of identity is often shaped through images and words in the media. Is the media creating our identity, or reflecting it? This is an important question to consider. The media, in an effort to represent America as a whole, relies on generalizations. This is troublesome as it most often results inaccurate stereotyping. The media is creating an idea of “what is normal.” Anyone that appears to be outside of this “normal” spectrum is discriminated against. We see this played out in sexism, racism, heterosexism, and classism.

The relationship between the media and class is particularly interesting. In America, your social class dictates much of the opportunities you are given whether it is in the workplace, at school, or in social situations. There is a hierarchical structure that separates America between the “haves” and “have nots.” This system of meritocracy says that you get what you work for. This is exemplified through the “American Dream.” The media (as a whole) subscribes to the “American Dream” which says if you work hard enough, you will be successful. This is problematic because what we see on television tells us that upper class people are hard workers and lower class people are lazy. There is a stereotypical binary system that many Americans buy into. Media literacy is vital when it comes to issues of race, ethnicity, class, gender, and sexuality. If we are not aware of how identity is socially constructed then we are subject to having a warped view of the world. Angela Reighard (talk) 17:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

@Angela Reighard: I like your thinking about the rhetoric surrounding poverty in our culture. We live in a time of such wealth disparity, but so many people are able to ignore this disparity by focusing on, as you call it, "American Dream" ideology of equal opportunity and equal access to wealth and knowledge. For many social groups, access to wealth and knowledge is harder to come by. Matthewvetter (talk) 19:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Critical Media Project

The idea of self-identity and knowing whom you are and where you came from is a concept that is extremely distorted through the media. This article gives examples of how the media depicts self-identities and turns them into a cultural reference or stereotypical identity instead of one having their own. This is to say that people of the same ethnicity and skin color have the same self-identity; this is not true, because of the other factors that make up self identity, but generally this comes from what ethnicity or country you are from. The media plays on this hoping to draw in these people. Masculinity, femininity, class, gender, etc. also have roles in determining self-identity. The media uses these characteristics to attract a certain type of person depending on the type of media. This website gives an example of 27 dresses as a movie that has a more feminine feel and a movie that most guys would not go see unless roped into by their girlfriend. The media’s target was a single or dating woman so that they can relate to the film. The media’s ability to play off of everyone’s self-identity is extreme, but where would we be without our movies, music, social media sites, commercials, etc.? Although, the media does some destruction when trying to evoke a certain race or gender, it is what people want; something to relate to. I think working and lower class are depicted in films and television just as much as gender and race. Where a person/character lives, works, eats, and who their family might be are definite characteristics that would go into defining a self-identity. No matter the film or television show, the environment that one inhabits says a lot about the person. Background information is a key necessity in identifying with oneself. Some people feel as though they are grouped in with others’ self-identity based on their culture or race, but without factoring in one’s personal qualities, self-identity is more of a group identity. JonieXie (talk) 17:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

@JonieXie: I think it's a smart impulse to point out that the media's not always destructive or negative. In many cases, television and other media forms allow for people to relate to identities that they might not have access to otherwise. I don't think the goal of the Critical Media Project is to disavow media completely because of the negative effect it can have on our social hierarchies and relations. Rather, I think the goal is to be mindful and "critical" of what is out there. Nice post. Matthewvetter (talk) 19:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Media Influence on Social Construction

When the author states that identities are “Socially Structured” I feel he means that society compiles our beliefs of our identities. This means that we see ourselves as society teaches us to see our selves. An example is I may think that I am a weaker physical person, but due to societies influence I feel this is a feminine trait. Had my belief not been social constructed I would have probably considered myself masculine in all areas. I feel our identities our heavily shaped and influenced by the world around us. Being a male, I will see other men on TV talking sports on TV and will feel the need to be well conversed in athletics if I am going to be “manly”. I may also see a woman wear make-up and feel I am to avoid make-up at all cost to avoid being “womanly”. These are examples of how this media process plays out in gender and sexuality. The more severe version is other people around me also get ideas like this from the media and social construction. This means that these thoughts and feelings become part of everyday life for me will constantly surround me. If the media convinces a friend of mine that looking their face in the mirror is something that a woman does by only portraying women looking at themselves in mirrors or having jokes about men doing it, my friend may get the idea that, this act is not something a man does. Therefore, if I look in a mirror to fix my teeth my friend may declare me to be acting like a woman and shying me away from ever looking at my reflection again. We are socially constructed by the media to categorize certain behaviors into categories, something men do something women do. If we want to avoid being labeled by one, we avoid acting like it.-ATBeach (talk) 20:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I really liked how you said society teaches us to see ourselves a certain way. I never thought of it like we were being taught to act or be a certain away, instead I was thinking of it as being influenced by the media but i think being taught defiantly represents it better. Alliemarie101 (talk) 20:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Critical Media Project

Identity as a social construct simply means that society helps not only define how we can identify ourselves but it puts limits on the ways we can identify ourselves. It's hard for people to step outside these boundaries as there is usually a lot of negative backlash against the person for not conforming to one of the main identities society has already set up. The media, in particular, is useful for communicating what identities are socially acceptable and which are not. What makes a television show or a movie successful? It needs to find an audience big enough to support it. Often times this is achieved through creating characters that people can see themselves in. This in turn brings everyone together and makes everyone feel good about themselves because their identity has been "approved" by society. They can rest easy now. Media can also tell people how to act through tv, movies, and commercials. Media helps set a precedent for what certain identities "do". For example, media could tell us that "real men" only eat McDonald's. After being bombarded through commercials and other media, men start to mimics this behavior as they do not want to be seen as "unmanly". Another example would be women's magazines deciding what is "beautiful" and what is not. This definitely influences how some women dress, act, and behave. To tie this into the class, media can also help tell us what we are not. For example, if we see the stereotypical redneck on television who is terrorizing a city, we can then compare ourselves to the character. Obviously, we are not that "identity" (at least in this example) and a sort of arrogance and superiority begins to set in because society is showing you either the worst of an identity or is just playing off of stereotypes. This is what can lead to racism and racist acts. ZackaryMullikin (talk) 21:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your statement where you said that media can tell people how to act because most people will follow the footsteps of the media. If they said to do or think one way, said person will do the same thing. Personally, I think that is a scary thought because one day the media will have some opinion that is way out there, and people will think that way just because the media said to. E.Kassel (talk) 21:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Identities are Subject to Society

Upon finishing the articles for this week and reading up a bit on the theory of “Social Constructionism” I believe I understand what the author of “Key Concepts” means when he says, “our identities are socially constructed.” The idea of social constructionism is based on the theory that an individual’s identity, including their personality, ideas, beliefs, opinions, and values, are not fabricated completely within the individual. There are numerous extraneous forces at work that mold and shape an individual as they progress through life. There are many institutions that have a great affect on the individual including parents, family, school, church, and the media. When the term “social” constructionism is used, all of these influences are bundled together. These social influences are constructing the individual’s identity. Values, beliefs, and moral principles are often homogenous within societal groups such as religions or nations but often conflict with the views of other groups. This can lead to nationalism, xenophobia, misunderstandings, and conflict. This is just an example of how a person’s identity is very biased. Clearly societal influences produce non-neutral identities through indoctrination, intentional or otherwise. I think it is very common for the media to use the non-neutrality of social groups to their advantage. The media, especially television, obsesses over issues that raise people’s blood pressure and cause heated debates at dinner tables. Most often these issues are disagreements between two social groups, such as races or religions. The news was dominated for months with the Trayvon Martin case and it was probably the most racially divided issue I’ve ever seen in my entire life. Today the news is dominated with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Again this is an example of an issue very divided down the line with Jews and Christians generally supporting one side, and everyone else on the other. The media presents very little “gray area” discussion of these issues and typically they only present the two opposing arguments in their most extreme form. Mkak8 (talk) 21:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with what you said that an individuals values are not fabricated by themselves and how out side factors such as media, family, religion and so on impact who we are and how we view other.Malcolm Pullom (talk) 21:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC) 

Media and Identity

The reading for today's hybrid assignment talks about social construction and how the media effects that for us. We ass have the basic ideas that set up who we are and how they shape us, such as gender, age, and race. However, the way the media portrays these things shapes how we form as a person. For example, popular TV shows may portray a gay male as being very flamboyant and eccentric, causing people to have an expectation that any gay male will act that way. However, that is not always the case, and may lead to a lot of identity confusion. Even though these stereotypes may not be correct, they still hold a heavy hand in shaping who we are as people. Society tells me that because I am a girl, I should like feminine colors and girly things, and that a male should like masculine things such as cars and lifting weights. Although these standards do not always hold true, they still place ideas in our heads that stick with us for our entire lives. This is a great example of how media holds a large amount of power. As children we are brought into the world as blank slates, we then absorb the world around us and take our shape based on the the people and experiences and culture that come in and out of our lives. Based off of this assertion one could wonder how would we develop if we didn't have the media to tell us how we are supposed to be?AKrahe (talk) 21:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)AKrahe

The Concept of Discourse Community

In "The Concept of Discourse Community," Swales gives us a conceptual model to identify discourse communities and understand how they shape writing practices. While this model continues to be useful for us as we try to get a handle on how social knowledge of a community can help us be more effective writers, Swales' model is also nearly 25 years old. What would you add to (or omit from) the six criteria to make it more useful today? 200 words before class Monday. Don't forget to sign your posts with four tildes. Matthewvetter (talk) 13:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Swales’ Six Criteria

The six criteria’s consist of, 1. Broadly agreed set of common public goals-which includes documents that have been formally inscribed for the public. These goals state the privacy and common objectives shared through these goals. I think a good point it makes is that different types of groups can share the same common objectives. I think I would elaborate more on the part where they mention spies may join speech and discourse communities for hidden purposes because it seems like it goes against the ideas of having a common set of public goals. The last criteria, of having a threshold level of members with a suitable degree of relevant content and discourse expertise, could use a little work. I think I would update and add some content regarding the balances between novices and experts. Bringing in enough novices to learn and value the memberships of experts, to keep it going. Generally, if I were to make any other changes or updates to the six criteria, I would make them a little clearer to understand with more examples.TayMills (talk) 02:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Six Criteria

In the article “The Concept of Discourse Community” by John Swales, he talks about six different criteria for defining a discourse community. Since this article is 25 years old, these criteria were quite difficult to understand. Honestly, I would have liked if all of the six criteria were updated, but if I had to pick one of them it would be the fourth one, “A discourse community utilizes and hence possesses one or more genres in the communicative furtherance of its aims.” I think that what needs to be added to this is an explanation about how media comes into play with this particular criteria. He discusses how “'genres are how things get done, when language is used to accomplish them.” Media can influence genre so I think that this is an important part to put in this particular criteria. Besides just this one criteria, I think they should all be rewritten in terms that are easier to comprehend, because it was difficult to decipher what all of these criteria were actually about. E.Kassel (talk) 03:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Swales' Six Criteria

Going right along with what my classmates are saying, Swales' six criteria need to be brought into the modern era and include internet discourse communities if they are to still be applicable today. However, many of the criterion's aspects are still useful. The general idea that a discourse community is a group of people who share a set of discourses, understood as basic values and assumptions, and ways of communicating about those goals is presented by Swales. Then his article goes on to claim that each discourse community has its own unwritten rules about what can be said and how it can be said: most people moving within and between different discourse communities every day. This is as much true a thousand years as it is today. According to Swales, however, the exchange of information requires language as the primary medium of communication: a a discourse community "is a group of people who share certain language-using practices... [that] can be seen as conventionalized." Today, that is not so much the case. There exist a ton of computer-programmed translation capabilities on the internet, making that one criteria, for example, in need of an update. 65.186.91.57 (talk) 19:40, 4 August 2014 (UTC)emgiunta

The Concept of Discourse Community

John Swales proposes six different rules or criteria for identifying a discourse community. These criteria are over 25 years so one might think that they are outdated and therefore not reliable. However, I would argue that most of his points still hold up today. Most of what he wrote hits the head on the nail and in fact some of it has come up in class. The one point I disagree with is his last point. He states that "a discourse community has a threshold level of members with a suitable degree of relevant content and discoursal expertise". He then goes on to talk about need to have a reasonable ratio of experts and novices in order for the community to survive. I would say this is not always true. Take Wikipedia for example, I would say there is a very high ratio of experts to novices (this also depends on your definition of experts and novices). There are plenty of communities that are hard for new people to enter in because the experts dont want to take the time to help them out or for other reasons. ZackaryMullikin (talk) 12:19, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you Zack. It’s easy to think these criteria are outdated because they are 25 years old but that really wasn’t that long ago in terms of communal relations and can still retain value among today’s perspectives. However they could use a little updating or maybe just rewritten with a little more clarity. Like with the number six of his list. I think what he is trying to say is that you want a certain amount of the group to be knowledgeable about the community to keep it on the right track and teach the novices or new entries. For example if we use Ohio University as a discourse community, and then all the administrators at Chubb Hall leave with no replacement, many students would be left on their own to fend for themselves. There are many that might not have trouble registering for classes but new students don’t know enough yet about the process and rules within the confinement of the organization. Eventually the community would begin to veer off course from the original goals in number one. I can't really think of anything to add to them rather than just modernize the criteria and rewrite them with examples so it is not such a dry read.Brendan.Hunstad (talk) 18:59, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Swales' reading response

Before even reading the article and only just reading the prompt, I can already tell that since Swales’ model is 25 years old the best thing to add to his model would be technology. It seems that new technologies are always coming out for products you wouldn’t expect, like a watch cell phone. Once I read the article near the beginning it mentions technologies when giving the example about the biologist and again later in the article I believe that technologies could be added into the second criteria, a discourse community has mechanisms of intercommunication among its members. Different genres in writing can develop as long as the discourse communities continue to evolve. I think that new technologies could benefit a discourse community. One part that seems a little outdated would be, a discourse community has a threshold level of members with a suitable degree of relevant content and discourse community, what I can take from this is that Swales’ is trying to say that once a certain level of discourse community members is reached then all new members trying to seek access to the community will be turned down, very similar to how Wikipedia allows edits on its cite. I mean, that’s the reason we have a focus of Appalachia, because if we were to choose a more controversial topic then it would be harder for us to be accepted into the Wikipedia discourse community. Eh598110 (talk) 13:48, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Swales’ “The Concept of Discourse Community”

I found this article extremely hard to read because it is 25 years old. Of his six criteria, I think the second is one of the most important to today’s society, however, I do not like the way he explains it. The ‘Café Owner Problem’ really does not make much sense. I think he should have done away with the example and it would have made it more understandable. The criteria states, “A discourse community has mechanisms of intercommunication among its members.” What I got from this is that in a community there are different ways to communicate without actually meeting the other people in the community. In his example, he talks about how café owners don’t necessarily have to meet each other but “they all have lines of communication back to base.” I think this relates to today’s society because people can communicate throughout the world via the internet without meeting in person. This is essential to most international businesses in order to create a broader client base. I think that if someone were to update the language and examples used by Swales’, the article would be easier for people today to relate to his criteria. Allyleah817 (talk) 14:15, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Swales' Discourse Community

John Swales' article “The Concept of Discourse Community” sets up six different criteria for what makes up a discourse community. As my classmates have pointed out, the article is 25 years old, making it very difficult to read and truly wrap your head around. While I do agree that there are still relevant points in the article that still apply today, I find it difficult see a lot of good coming from something so difficult to read through. I think that the wording of each concept could be updated, as well as the examples. It would also be helpful to include technology in the six criteria, as technology is so prevalent in today's day and age.One specific criteria I would change is number two, "A discourse community has mechanisms of intercommunication among its members." While I like the idea of sharing knowledge, I also think that the way this concept is explained is overly complex, making it confusing and therefor causing it to possibly be overlooked. I think it should also be more clear about how this information is shared at the what extent. AKrahe (talk) 18:15, 4 August 2014 (UTC)AKrahe

Discourse Criteria Changes

fter reading Swales’ 6 criteria model for a discourse, I can clearly see why it has lasted 25 years. The 6 criteria are general enough to work with all kinds of discourses. These can include academic, athletic, church, etc. however I feel that it can be improved a little. Criteria number 1 touches on common goals, which a discourse should have, but I feel this should be amended to include a common relationship too. Along with the goals of the discourse, there are other relationships that form it. Education, sport, and beliefs. These lead to constructing goals. A second change that I would request would be to change number 6 to include members with no suitable knowledge. Many discourses strive to include and recruit members with no suitable knowledge on the discourse, in order that they may be part of the discourse to in some way serve in it. Schools give scholarships to uneducated, teams give spots to people who may have never played before in order to use their “raw talent”, and evangelists always share their beliefs. In these cases the discourses grow and have members in various levels of knowledge. The uneducated person becomes an academic, the sprinter learns to bat, and the person on the street gets saved by Jesus Christ when hearing the evangelists and joins the church discourse.ATBeach (talk) 18:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

After reading the article “The Concept of Discourse Community” I had a much clearer understanding as to the technical criteria of a discourse community. While Swales’ characteristics are informative, the attributes he defined seem exclusionary for today’s reality. With the invention and mass distribution of internet access following the article, the informational threshold for membership in a discourse community has been lowered in terms of the necessary time commitment and expertise. Additionally, membership in discourse communities seem to be of a more transient nature. For example, cause and community pages tend to have peaks in salience and then fall into relative obscurity (Kony 2012). The web is a public knowledge base with endless possibilities for future establishment of discourse communities. A user has access to limitless information pertaining to the topic of their choosing, and the establishment of social media is momentous in facilitating growth of the community. A formal degree or deep knowledge and commitment is no longer imperative for an individual’s actual and perceived integration in the community to lend validity to their claims and insights. This makes information sharing faster and more open to the average individual. The ease with which one can become a part of a discourse community is matched with the ease with which one can disengage, leading to shallower understanding and lower production/dissemination of norms and information. With a single click, insight is shared among the friends/followers of the poster without any guarantee of its validity. Information is viral, in some ways temporary, and at times contradictory, making core commitments less comprehensible and members more mob like than participatory.Cf105308 (talk) 18:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Six Criteria

In Swales article he describes six criteria of a discourse community. I found this article to be a little bit difficult to understand and to fully get a grasp on maybe since its 25 years old or that he believes that his complicated style of writing is easy to understand, but after re reading the criteria a few times I think that the second criteria that a discourse community has mechanisms of intercommunication among its members needs to be updated the most. First of all I feel that his explanation of the criteria was lacking, it seems that his explanation focused more on what a discourse community is rather than describing the intercommunication among the members well. He does bring that explanation in, but it seems that he does very briefly. Instead of talking about how café owners are part of a discourse community before he describes the criteria, maybe he should have picked a community that is obviously a discourse community and not one that is being disputed as one, which he explains at the end. I would also update how the members can communicate with today’s technology which allows us to communicate with each other better than it ever has. I feel that this criteria could have been better explained and the styles of communication should be updated as well. MattSchimm (talk) 19:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Swales and his six criteria

For the most part what swales is saying is relevant in some fashion although it’s over two decades old. Although I was not entirely clear on what he was saying. I believe he was getting at the point that everything has a community even if we are aware of it or not. For instance the coffee shop owners are all connected to what he called a base, even though they don’t know it. They are connected through common interest and needs. Or in example five he talks about how medical communities are united though highly technical terminology, where the majority of the people who would understand it are located in that field in that community. I don’t agree with Swales when he say “if they never open any of its communications they can- not be said to belong to the discourse community” because you do belong to a community. Much like the coffee shop owner example you joined for a purpose and you have the same common interest rather you implement your reasons for joining or not. You had intentions to do something that the rest of the group does. Malcolm Pullom (talk) 19:48, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Six Criteria

I think Swales uses his characteristics in describing discourse communities very well. He says this regarding genres, “textual tools used by groups of people as they work toward their desired ends”. I think he describes and explains his ideas extremely thoroughly and with a chain of reasoning. His comparison of a discourse versus speech community was quite difficult for me to read, but once over I know what he is saying. I think Fishman’s definition and understanding of a speech community is best by saying that those who share functional rules that determine the appropriacy of utterances. I think this is an excellent way to describe a group of people who share speech similarities. When linking speech and discourse communities, he says he does not think that a concrete definition of a speech community will help create a concrete definition of a discourse community. I agree, because although the two are similar, they have differences that are significant enough to not run them hand in hand. A speech community is derived by communicating with others in a certain, unspoken, understood way. A discourse community relies on a group of people communicating in hopes of reaching a specific objective. On one hand, both involve groups of people speaking, but the reason for their speaking is different creating very different definitions of both. Cohen’s article was shocking when I started reading. It is strange that only 15 percent of Wikipedia users are women. Based on the amount of articles regarding and targeting women specifically, it is a wonder how more women have not taken interest. I think Cohen makes a good point that this computer-oriented organization is a male’s domain and says some women may feel uncomfortable because of that. I agree that with more pressure and advertising that Wikipedia will gain more and more support from women.JonieXie (talk) 20:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Sommers, "Revision Strategies"

Read Sommers' "Revision Strategies of Student Writers and Experienced Adult Writers." After you've read, do some thinking about your own writing process. Think about a major research paper or other writing assignment you've completed in the past. What steps did you follow? How would you define those steps. 200 words before class Wednesday. Make sure you're logged in and sign your post with four tildes. Matthewvetter (talk) 13:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Research Process

My major does not require many research papers but most of my tier courses do. I’m usually not very interested in the subject and I’m not as familiar with the writing style. I struggle more with research papers than other genres. I usually start but looking up a few good source and try to put something together. This is almost always a rushed process and the order of my paper becomes a mess. In a way, I do the research and writing part of the paper simultaneously. If I don’t have enough information or I don’t meet the requirement I will look for other sources to add. Once my paper is complete, I do spell check and I quick overview. That is the extent of my revision. I usually don’t change much because I’m burnt out on the subject. The steps we took in our current Wikipedia project have been helpful for my writing process. At first I felt like the requirements were going to be tedious and stressful, but they ended up making things easier for me. Becoming a better proofreader and revising my papers is something that I always want to get better at but I never leave myself time for. 184.57.88.10 (talk) 19:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)jp302408

Research Processes

Most times, when I write research papers, I do my research first, writing down bullet points from each point of reference and quotes I want to use. After that, I usually free write, leaving the intro and conclusion out for the time being. Once I see what I have all put together, it's easier for me to write a thesis. However, for other writing assignments that are less research-based, I do the complete opposite. I need direction and that's where my thesis comes in. Usually, my papers have to be rearranged a lot and, to be honest, I'm still not sure of exact placement of paragraphs when I submit them. I spell and grammar check as I go along, with an obvious read through before I turn it in. If I can't think of a word I want to use, I will put in a synonym, underline it, and use a thesaurus later. That last revision strategy may get me into some trouble...I tend to use too many 5-dollar words, which can muddle my meaning. 65.186.91.57 (talk) 18:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)emgiunta

Revision Strategies

As I’ve talked about multiple times this semester, the main type of paper that I write is lab reports. I’ve written so many in the last few years that I have developed my own sort of procedure for how I write them. As a scientist, I know that there is a certain layout that most lab reports are written in and I personally like to stick to that general layout so my writing is roughly the same every time. They start with a detailed introduction, followed by a procedure, then data, calculations, and results, and finally a conclusion and discussion. As long as I am following these steps I know that my lab report will generally be a good one. In the article, Sommers talks about rewriting and revising multiple times in her writing strategies. I don’t necessarily do that when I am writing my lab reports. The main thing I do to ‘revise’ my paper is to make sure that everything is in the third person passive voice. This is a typical convention for lab reports. Instead of writing “I added this much of this,” you should write “This much of this was added.” Sometimes it’s hard to stay in this voice so I always make sure that I reread my entire report at least once to make sure I did. Other than that I just make sure that all my figures and tables have the correct labels and that’s my revising. Allyleah817 (talk) 15:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Nancy Sommers

The last big paper I did was for my aviation class. In my airline operations class we had a simulated airline company and had to market, grow and manage our airline. While doing so we had to read a book from a former airline CEO eventually do a paper over the book and how things correlated from what we were doing with our airline and what we were learning in class. Just as Nancy Sommers talks about in the beginning of the reading. I had to do the paper in a linear fashion with a conception stage, incubation stage and finally the production stage. We had to take our paper to the student writing help center to get the paper revised. The revision strategy that was common among the class was the revision of words and eliminating words that were not needed. Instead of redoing the mapper I just marked out the words that needed changing and fixed them. It is my belief that my teacher required us to go to the student writing help center because just like Nancy Sommers said “Students decide to stop revising when they decide they have not violated any of the rules for revising” and that doesn’t mean a paper is correct. Malcolm Pullom (talk) 15:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Revision Processes

I’ve had to write quite a few papers in the past few years; however most of my revision processes were done when I took English my freshman year. That was when I really learned different ways of revising my work. We had a series of papers; my usual process would be brainstorming, rough draft, peer review, revisions and then final copy. However, for the final big paper we went through that process and I had a few peers review and critique of my rough draft, so I could go on and revise it the best I could. I then set up a meeting with my professor and had a one on one revision meeting, where he sat down and gave me ideas for revisions. It has always been really helpful to me to have several eyes reading my paper and help with the revision process. I know for me, a lot of the time after reading my paper over and over, it got so repetitive that I couldn’t see what needed revised anymore. A new set of eyes is a fresh and helpful tool to my revising process. Just as Nancy Sommers states that revision is an afterthought, an improvement to what is already there; this is also a good reason of why having different people critique my paper is helpful, because it generates new ideas.TayMills (talk) 21:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Revision Strategies

So far in college I have not had to write many papers. Being a Biology major has meant more reports and research rather than actual papers. But for the few that I did write for English freshmen year I followed the same process I did in high school. Although this process may not be correct, I would usually start but researching and drafting my paper. I would get a general idea of what I wanted to write and then take it back to class to get it peer reviewed. The peer review helped me to see if the general flow and ideas of my paper were how I wanted them to be. After the peer review I would fix my draft and make sure I was not over looking anything. Following this I would ask a friend or my professor to look over my paper to check for any grammatical errors or errors in syntax. Lastly after all the revisions I read my paper out loud to make sure I haven’t missed anything. After thing long process I would consider myself done and would have a final paper.Alliemarie101 (talk) 19:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Revision Strategies

Being a sports management major, I have always had to write a lot of papers. One of the many papers I had to write over the years was in my “sports sales and sponsorship” class this past spring. For our major paper we had to pick a sports team or college in Chicago (ours was Northwestern), and write a proposal for Dick’s Sporting Good’s to become a sponsor of the University athletics. The steps that I took to write this paper were to first write down the exact categories that I needed to make a complete proposal. Then, I did research on both the schools athletics and the Dick’s Sporting Goods Company. After doing research I made my outline of each different category and began to type it up. Once the research and outline were finished, it was easy enough to have a rough draft, and then have a meeting with my professor to look over the work we had done. After that meeting we revised our work and turned it in. Those steps that we took got us a very good grade on our assignment. The steps and routine that I use for papers is almost always the same because it helps me to write a good paper. This article gave good insight into the world of revision in writing papers, which could be helpful to me in the future. E.Kassel (talk) 00:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Revision Strategies

I think that Sommers makes a great point right off the bat by saying that the writing process has, over time, became less of a revision process and more of a perfection process. She begins by explaining two different models of the writing process. She describes a way of writing involving re-writing and revision that does not depict the speaker, as well as a linear model. I agree in terms of the steps I take when writing including the re-writing process. I think the simple way of writing is still the best kind; rough draft, revision, re-writing, final draft. She says that students think of the revision process as rewording. I agree that this is a common thought, but eliminating the re-use of words is only one of the many steps in the revision process. I think using the same word over and over is a reading annoyance, but the same with misused punctuation, unclear thoughts, lack of introduction, body, or conclusion, and shortening of elongated phrases. There are so many mistakes one can make when writing, the revision process is of high importance and should not be swept under the rug. There are some types of writing that encourage these mistakes, but mostly personal writings such as diaries, journals, poems of some sort. I think the core reason for revision is not to change vocabulary, but to have a clear understanding of the argument or purpose at hand. A common misconception when writing is getting lost of your own writing and when reading it over, you realize you were trailing on for two paragraphs about nothing so you change it until you have it right. I agree with this type of revision and it will always be how many people go about revising their writing.JonieXie (talk) 01:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

My Lack of Revision Strategies

I’ve written several research papers so far my college career which usually is about one or two each semester. Unfortunately last Spring I had four or five due for classes with requirements longer than ten pages each. I don’t know how I was able to pull out a twenty five page paper regarding the Societal Impact of Population Growth and the Colorado River Basin Drought but it earned me an A. My methods seem to be the same no matter what I’m writing. Usually start on it the day or night before with very little forethought and type until I’m exhausted of the subject. I think about what the paper is going to say and then decide my arguments or driving points. Then come up with a good thesis statement and build an introduction preceding it. Next I take each point and research it while constructing my paper at the same time and move on to the next one till I’m finished. Very, very rarely will I read through it again. I tend to quickly browse for any red or green lines that I need to correct. But I think Sommers has a good point in this reading that the idea of revising or rewriting one’s work opposes the American normative for college writing. It seems wrong to do so when we’re taught since grade school how to streamline our process and be more efficient at writing. And we shouldn’t be afraid to go back and fine tune or adjust our work to produce a better final draft.Brendan.Hunstad (talk) 03:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Sommers Revision

The papers that I have had to write while in college have typically been History research papers or some sort of an analysis paper. My process usually starts with me loosely planning out how my paper is going look like. I try to figure out what I am going to say for each paragraph and what my possible thesis could be before I do anything. Then I do research and adjust my plan according to the research that I find. Sometimes I don't have to change anything and other times the entire paper has been changed. Then I try to write my paper as close to the plan as I can. I usually do very little revision. This is where my paper writing could improve vastly. Most of the time I am just happy to be done and based on my past success I can get away with not revising or reviewing. A lot of what Sommers said was about how we try to be as efficient as possible and in turn we don't put as much time and energy past the minimum in order to complete the project. This definitely resonates with me. ZackaryMullikin (talk) 05:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Writing Method

Typically when I begin the writing process I start by mentally outlying all the things I want to include. If I am doing an assignment with distinct sections such as project 3 or a lab report, I will write a little for each section to begin. I call this a skeleton. This is a paper with the frame done, but no “meat” to it and functionless by itself as a paper. This gets me organized for the task at hand and allows me to divide and conquer. The next thing I do is I start to fill in the sections until I feel that they have all I want to contain. I will call this the filling step. Here I do research and actually write my assignment, and naturally is the longest part of the process. Finally I do the mind numbing work of the revising and editing step. I refer to this as mind numbing because it involves reading the same stuff over and over to see if it’s still right from the last time you have read it. During this process I look for grammatical errors, overall flow, and check the appropriateness of the information to the assignment. These three simplified steps is my overall writing method.ATBeach (talk) 15:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

My Revision Process

During my revisions, I tend to have a continuous process rather than write, revise, repeat. This can sometimes cause me to spend much more time than necessary on a piece of writing. After reading the Sommers’ article, I realized this is due to my inexperience and fear of restarting the paper altogether. While reviewing my work, I begin by reading it out loud to catch any weirdly worded sentences, grammatical errors, or repetitive words. After this I usually send it to a friend or classmate to have them peer review. I ask them to focus on the content and flow of the writing, because at this point I have reworked the document numerous times. Early in my college career I realized that cramming or stress writing at the last minute gets the work done, but also leaves me with a sloppy final product. Reaching out to classmates first, followed by graduate students and finally professors with the near to final draft is the process I have found best for my writing. I make small revisions and word changes when necessary, but count on others to find problems I may overlook. Finally, before I submit my final draft, I read the piece out loud one last time to ensure completeness. Making any final formatting changes necessary and double checking project requirements follows this. Cf105308 (talk) 17:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

My Writing Process

My own writing process has been derived from the age-old official writing process taught in schools here across America. First you make some sort of web, or cluster, then pre-write, draft, have a buddy proofread, revise, and type final draft. I’m a bit of a short cutter, I’ll admit it, and I also suffer from a tendency to procrastinate. As such I find that as I grow older I tend to cut out some of the process that has been instilled in me over the years. The first thing to go is usually the word cluster or web, hey I can do all that stuff in my head, right? The next thing to go would probably be the pre-write, why not skip right to the draft? The problem I have noticed with my situation is that when I find myself in a classroom type environment, where the process goes step-by-step and I’m kind of “forced” to do all the steps because of due dates, my writing really improves. I’ve learned that the steps are important and really do make me a better writer. However, when left to my own devices I often take the short path or I am forced to do so because I procrastinated too long and don't have enough time. Mkak8 (talk) 18:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Writing process

In high school and throughout my research writing history I had been taught that in the beginning stages of a research paper to find your sources and start making notes of what you want in your paper. During high school I would do this religiously, thinking that this was the only way I would do well on the assignment. Now that I’ve gotten older I have come to realize that I can somewhat skip this step, instead of writing down everything I would want to support my paper I have begun to copy and paste to a word document with a link to the website below for easy access when referencing it. To define my current writing process I will use a paper I am currently writing for my HLTH 4375 class, I would begin with brainstorming the topic of my paper, the guidelines for my health paper were to write a paper either about HIPAA (health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act), Medicaid, Medicare, PPACA (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) or EMTALA (Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act) I choose to write about HIPPA’s and the PPACA will affect rehabilitation, because I have a close family member struggling with addition. So not only is this topic related to what my professor wants but also I have an angle on the paper that makes me interested. I then moved on to the title and outline of the paper, I like to be very structured with my information in my writing, I always start with an opening paragraph, followed by the body and ending with the conclusion. In the opening I plan to discuss both PPACA and HIPAA and why I chose my topic, and I always end with a thesis statement. In the body I plan to discuss how PPACA and HIPAA will affect rehabilitation centers and how the new Obamacare will affect the process of receiving rehabilitation in anyway. In the conclusion I always summarize the entire paper hitting on all of my main points, after making the title and outline I go on to construct the paper using my word document with tidbits of information and the outline. I have gotten through my college career for this long with this process, but I have already learned a lot about the writing process so far in this class. Eh598110 (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Revision Strategies

When I was in high school I would start my papers by first doing any research that needed to be done for the paper. I would print out the sources I planned on using and then go through those again with a highlighter, selecting the sections that I thought would be good to quote in my paper. Once that step was done I would create an outline with my thesis at the start, and the topic sentences that I planned to use for the paper following that, ending it with the closing sentence. Each of these sections would have a bullet list to follow them with ideas of what was to go in each paragraph. Once that step was complete I would type out the first draft of the paper with the help of the outline, and add in the quotations I had previously chosen. After completing the first draft I would take the paper to another student, teacher, or my parents to read it over for any spelling or grammar mistakes. I would have that person circle and mark up the first draft for me so that I knew what to go back and reassess in my next step. After this I would then start on my final draft where I would fix any mistakes I had made, and read through the paper one last time before turning in the completed assignment. Currently in college, my process is less formal, I still uses some of those steps to help get myself organized, but I don't always have the time to do as much of the formal process as I would like with my writing. AKrahe (talk) 19:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)AKrahe

Revision Strategies

Nancy Sommers explores revision strategies for different levels of writers. She talks to both students and experienced adult writers to see how they approach the revision process. Students most often reviewed their writing, while some redid their piece altogether. Experienced adult writers tended to rewrite and revise during the revision process. This means they would edit words or phrases, refine their ideas, and edit the structure of their sentences. In the past, I’ve shared revision strategies of both students and experienced writers. When you have a major writing assignment, I think it is easy to spit it out on paper, skim over it, and turn it in. However, I’ve learned this does not produce the best product. Due to my major, I’ve experience first-hand that revision is the best policy. I often rewrite sentences and refine my ideas so that my piece is effective. I also changed the way I see a draft of my writing. Instead of seeing it as one-step before my final product, I started to view the draft as merely the first step. This challenged me to allot more time for the editing process. I will often give myself at least a week to revise a piece if time allows. I’ve noticed a big difference in my writing now that I have allowed time for examination. When you can leave and go back to your writing, you notice things you didn’t before and you think of ways to make it better. Sommers nicely explains why revision is important, especially for student writers. Angela Reighard (talk) 19:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Revision

In my major I usually have one class a semester that requires me to write a big research paper. When I begin to write one of these papers the first thing I do is to gather up all the information and just begin to write about what I have read in my own words as best as possible for my first draft. I usually just revise grammar mistakes in the first draft right away and then I re read it and try to fix sentences that could make better sense. I don’t really focus on the paper as a whole like the experienced writers do in the article. I would define the steps I take as sort of a paragraph revision process. I choose this definition because I usually look at how to make each section of the paper better through the paragraphs themselves and I don’t really focus on moving them around and such for a better structure to the paper and I usually just do one revision of my first draft and feel pretty good with the work I did on the paper. After reading this article I can see how I can make my future papers better through a more complete revision process and it is definitely a helpful article to read for writing better works. MattSchimm (talk) 19:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Graham's "Wiki Space: Palimpsests and the Politics of Exclusion"

In "Wiki Space: Palimpsests and the Politics of Exclusion," Mark Graham demonstrates how Wikipedia, far from being a completely neutral and comprehensive source of global information, is characterized by "uneven geographies, uneven directions, and uneven politics," especially in its representation of regions of the third-world. Graham uses the notion of "palimpsest" ("a manuscript or piece of writing material on which the original writing has been effaced to make room for later writing but of which traces remain") as a way to call our attention to the fact that places are socially constructed through their representations in media (esp. in Wikipedia). One of his goals here is to get us to pay attention to the many "terra incognita" of this global encyclopedia, the parts of the world that are underrepresented or even omitted completely. For this [post, I'd like you to do some synthesis of Graham's article with other readings and projects from our course. How does Graham's argument and analysis, for instance, relate to our work on the representation of Appalachia in Wikipedia? How does it relate to our readings in the Critical Media Project and discussion of "social construction." Finally, how has your work in Wikipedia this term address the problems of Appalachian representation in Wikipedia? This should be a longer post, at least 400 words, due before 6pm Saturday. Be sure to give your post a title and sign it using four tildes. Matthewvetter (talk) 15:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Palimpsests and the Politics of Exclusion

Mark Graham’s “Wiki Space: Palimpsests and the Politics of Exclusion” offers an interesting exploration of unnamed biases in Wikipedia. Graham asserts that while the articles claim to be written from a neutral point-of-view, perhaps they are not neutral at all. Omission is at the heart of his argument. When you look at Wikipedia, most of the articles you see are written in English and represent (or refer to) the United States. Similarly, the people authoring those articles are young western males. Given this fact, can we say that Wikipedia is really fair and neutral? Graham questions the equality of various “spaces” on Wikipedia and the power relations between those spaces. In terms of geography, there are places that are overrepresented (United States) and places that are underrepresented (Africa). Graham uses the phrase “terra incognita” to refer to the absence of places on Wikipedia. By the same token, 10% of editors contribute to over 90% of the articles. This is problematic because that means a small minority is representing a large majority (though not in terms of social representation). Certain editors are dictating how people and places that are offline are represented online. Graham refers to this as the “palimpsests of place” meaning that Wikipedia allows for the slate to be wiped clean, but for traces of the original article to remain.

The idea of palimpsest ties into social constructionism. What we read/see in the media (in this case Wikipedia) dictates our understanding of various populations and places. The media, by omitting certain places from the discussion or by generalizing and/or stereotyping, is creating an identity. This perceived identity then carries over into everyday interactions. The masses inaccurately identify a population and individuals themselves start to qualify their person by socially constructed means. This is evident in the representation of Appalachia in Wikipedia. To reference Graham, Appalachia was overwhelmingly “terra incognita.” The few articles that related to the region were either underdeveloped or stereotypical in nature (ie: snake handling, hillbilly, War on Poverty etc.). This could serve as proof of Graham’s argument. Appalachia was an underrepresented space compared to other regions in the United States. In addition, the small fraction of editors that likely contributed to the article were relying on stereotypes constructed in other forms of media. Thus, Appalachia was defined in the global encyclopedia as poor, white, and uneducated. For the “hillbilly” article specifically, much of what was written was done so without care. In the talk page, a contributor said he was going to essentially “paste” sections of his research paper into the article. While much of his research was good, there was no effort to revise the article for the Wikipedia genre. Perhaps this person was not aware of the genre’s writing conventions, but perhaps this speaks to the total disregard for Appalachia’s representation. In an effort to improve the representation, I focused a lot on revision. I took what was a research paper and transformed it so that it had a chance to be accepted in the Wikipedia community. I also added research that spoke to the term’s stereotypical nature and the cultural consequences associated with it. By doing so, I feel like I did my part to give a voice to Appalachia. Angela Reighard (talk) 14:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Grahams Reading Response

Graham argues that not only are people socially constructed through their representation of the media, but places can also be socially constructed, especially in Wikipedia. He wants us to give thought to the many “terra incognita’s” (area in media where there is missing information) making some places are underrepresented and in some cases omitted from the encyclopedia. I believe that this is a broader scope than what our class focuses in on; the point of this class is to better represent the Appalachian area in Wikipedia, one of the terra incognita’s Graham mentions. So our class has more of a focus where as Grahams reading is more broad; covering all misrepresented areas of Wikipedia. Graham takes a strong focus on omitted information from Wikipedia. He mentions when browsing Wikipedia the most developed articles are ones geared toward white nerdy males, given this, how could Wikipedia be an unbiased encyclopedia? Social constructionism ties in with what graham repeatedly uses, palimpsest. What the average human sees or reads in the media continually shapes our understanding of people and places. Since Wikipedia is written mostly by middle aged white men there is a lot of room for misrepresenting the subject of a page. Gender definitely takes top concern, without female writers things geared more towards women will be less developed. Age also becomes a concern, if only middle aged writers are working on Wikipedia then there are gaps in both older and younger generational information. Social class also could create a gap, assuming the men writing Wikipedia are all financially stable (because if they weren’t why are they spending time working on Wikipedia and not scraping up extra cash?) then lower class information could be omitted from Wikipedia all together. As much as Wikipedia tries to be an unbiased encyclopedia, there are too many factors going against it. Gender, age, and class are just a few of the many variables. However Wikipedia is trying to get a broader scope of writers, by appealing to women and college students to bridge the gap between what is written in Wikipedia and what should be written in Wikipedia. Taking this class has shown me that Wikipedia strives to be a reliable source, and it succeeds with this task, every bit of information should be linked back to its original source. However this class has also taught me that even though each individual Wikipedia page may be reliable, but Wikipedia as a whole has many gaps that need to be closed. Eh598110 (talk) 15:41, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Space

Graham starts off by showing how some view Wikipedia and the information posted on any given site. He explains Wikipedia by saying, “the ability to create online interpretation of the offline world” and this fascinates me, because I have never thought of an informational site in this way. I think it is interesting that so many countries and people use Wikipedia for search engine informational material owing to the fact that most Wikipages come with a warning that some or all information may not be accurate. I also think that the editing process and revisions have changed in recent years to make Wikipedia more reliable and less unbiased. Wikipages are neutral and give information from both sides of any given subject as opposed to the “right” one. He also discusses how Wikipedia has “uneven” geographies and directions. Owing to the hundreds of languages Wikipages have been translated into, the pages that are designed in specific languages will only ever be legible to those who read that language, not specific to who wants information on the given subject. He also includes an “uneven” voices excerpt explaining that not everyone who has a substantial opinion or knowledge on a subject uses Wikipedia. There are not as many women as men who are involved with Wikipedia creating a barrier: a barrier between having a male’s perspective on a given subject versus having both a female and male opinion on a subject. There are many subjects on which men can not even begin to speak about which are the articles that women flock to because there is no male to argue with her or prove her wrong. This is the opinion some women have about speaking their minds. Overall, this article explains the in and outs of Wikipedia and the guidelines that fuel it, the politics that go into each article, and improvements we can hope to see.JonieXie (talk) 23:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Mark Graham: “Wiki Space: Palimpsests and the Politics of Exclusion”

In this reading, Graham talks about how “power relationships and divisions in the offline world…often exclude certain types of knowledge in online representations.” This relates to our class this semester because we have been talking about how Appalachia is misrepresented in the media, including Wikipedia, and how some of the cultural aspects of the area are completely omitted from media. Graham talks about cloud collaboration which is the basis of Wikipedia. This is the idea that anyone can contribute to the articles about anything. While this makes Wikipedia a constantly changing encyclopedia in a constantly changing world, it also can misrepresent places or topics. We have talked about this over and over in this class.

The Critical Media Project also relates to this reading because it talks about how different aspects of society are misrepresented in the media. This ultimately constructs our views of the world and makes us uninformed of the realities of different people and different cultures. Graham talks about how our views of “cultural, economic, and political” issues are based on what we see in the media or what we read in a Wikipedia article. These are some of the same issues that The Critical Media Project take on and they have roughly the same arguments.

I think that the work we have done in Wikipedia really has made a difference on how Appalachia is represented in the encyclopedia. The article I worked on is the Vinton County, Ohio page and I think that just by adding 1,200 words to the article, it has really improved the content. Before I did my edits, there were very few details in the different sections and none of them really went into detail about the area. Also, some of the information was from a 2000 census so it wasn’t even up to date. Now if someone were to research the county, the article would give them a better idea of the culture and background of the area. The article now looks like the ones from more developed counties around Ohio and I think it could potentially be upgraded from the start class article that it was before my edits. I think other peoples article edits have also really impacted the way that Appalachia is represented in Wikipedia. I know the articles for other counties have been edited and they have probably accomplished the same goals that I have with my edits. Allyleah817 (talk) 02:02, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Space

"Wiki Space: Palimpsests and the Politics of Exclusion" by Mark Graham is a honest look at the underlying issue of the supposed "neutrality" in Wikipedia. While Wikipedia attempts to have its articles be written from a neutral point of view, Graham argues that they are not neutral at all. Some of the things he talks about we have talked about in class before. For example, Graham discusses the fact that a majority of Wikipedia articles are written in English and represent the United States. They are mainly written by white males. Graham also talks about the overrepresented and the underrepresented in Wikipedia. Graham repeatedly uses the term "terra incognita" throughout the piece. He is referring areas in which there is missing information in things such as the media.

One of the things Graham mentions, and it's a word in the title, is the term palimpsest. Essentially, he talks about how what we read and see in the media or online changes and warps our understanding and expectations of people, places, and culture. The media essentially creates an identity and people buy in to what the media says and eventually that becomes what the majority believe. These beliefs can turn into stereotypes which hurt or hold down certain cultures or people.

Our work in Wikipedia, interestingly enough, helps shed light on an underrepresented place (Appalachia) in an overrepresented place (United States) on Wikipedia. This also ties into what we have been discussing with regard to social construction. Media has decided that Appalachia is not worthy of being important and therefore is not fleshed out on Wikipedia because they are not important enough for people to learn about. As people who have lived in the region for at least a couple of years, we have the unique opportunity of understanding the region while also knowing the stereotypes, which sometimes drive the Wikipedia pages that are written by someone who isnt from the region. We are able to help fight the stereotypes that are portrayed by the media. As a class, we also help diversify the editors of Wikipedia. According to Graham, 10% of editors contribute to over 90% of the articles. We, as a class also arent all white males although we do have a bunch of them.

Representations in Wikipedia

The premise of Graham’s article is that there are many parts of the world and society that are under represented in Wikipedia and when they are constructed, they are social constructed. This is in relation to our class because one of our main class themes was centered on the belief that Appalachia was under and misrepresented in the Wikipedia articles relating to it. Graham discusses a lot in his article about how articles underrepresent some areas and better represent others. He also discusses how people represent these regions are not always necessarily from them. One graph he shows very little activity in Africa as far as amount of articles discussing them, while another shows that some of these countries have very many articles per 100,000 internet users. Graham concludes and so do I that, this supports evidence that many people are living in areas that foreigners write about. This can cause biased and stereotypical articles on these areas with the little representation that they had.

This was the focus of our class, Appalachia was underrepresented in Wikipedia and what little representation that was there was bias and propelled stereotypes. This is where social construction can come into play. With little information, and outsiders providing it, the readers of these articles will begin to see these regions as the people that wrote them do. This would not be a problem if the people that wrote them were more than likely writing them from 1,000 miles away with no personal experience directly with the region and more than likely using common stereotypes and perceptions as a base to construct these articles. Thus, contributing to the social construction of how the regions perceived. An example of this would be taking the stereotype that all African nations are poor and have flawed political systems and having the entire article focus on the poverty in the nation and poor government influence. Even if there are writers in the underrepresented areas of Wikipedia that start or work on these articles, their work can quickly be changed by a man in his basement 5,000 miles away and the entire world can read about what he thinks is important about the region, rather than what the native does.

I feel this summer I personally have tried to help with the issue, by writing in Wikipedia about topics related to my region. I developed an article about a film taking place in the Appalachian region, that I was born and raised in and currently reside. ATBeach (talk) 16:27, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Western Ethic and the Spirit of Wikipedia

I’m not sure if anyone will get the reference to my title but this article sounded very familiar to me. Not only does it readdress some of the issues we’ve been discussing in class about Wikipedia being influenced proportionally by one particular group of people, but to me the author Mark Graham must have been a follower of Max Weber. Famed sociologist Max Weber’s theories of stratification and social change can be found deep in the points that Graham is trying to make. Weber believed in a three dimensional view of social factors that contribute to society; economic class, cultural status, and political power. In this article, Graham discusses three core reasons why Wikipedia is flawed in it’s representation of material which all relate back to its contributors. Which reminds me of an anthropology class I took where we learned about the Pareto principle, or commonly known as the 80/20 rule, where twenty percent of the group will represent the other eighty. And when you think about how much of the world’s population is developed to the level we are accustomed to in America, and then look at who is in control of global organizations such as the United Nations, NATO, or the World Trade Organization, then you can see how the components of Weber’s theories play their parts. Just like Graham argues Wikipedia does in the offline world. In a brief web search I stumbled across the 1% rule which states that for every ninety-nine percent of people viewing the internet the other one percent actually contributes new content. And I think this is ultimately where we need to focus if we want to fix the “flaws” in Wikipedia that Graham refers to. He does mention the policy of neutral point of view(NPOV) that many members strive to maintain but I think some aspects of neutrality can get lost in translation. For example, in writing my own contributions to Wikipedia I failed to remember that few nations operate on the empirical system. This is the biggest thing that Nikkimaria pointed out to me in her evaluation of my articles. I needed to go back and add the metric conversion to all my units of measurement and temperature. But this is a small-scale example of Graham’s argument. However I think he is prematurely attacking Wikipedia for its misrepresentation. The internet is less than three decades old and Wikipedia was launched just thirteen years ago, in 2001. Being so young yet so widely accessed I think Graham is holding Wikipedia to a higher standard and not taking into account that both the majority of the world is still behind technologically and contributors to this site are voluntary. I think as the need for Wikipedia increases in these underdeveloped regions so will the number of articles relating to them. He talks about most of Africa and language speakers of Kiswahili being poorly represented in Wikipedia but as they become more technologically advanced we will see these parts of Wikipedia become more developed. Unlike the Encyclopedia Britannica, editors and contributors are not paid for their work. There is no department that issues assignments to specific individuals to work on for compensation. So it is only natural that areas of interest, such as the Lord of the Rings Middle Earth, will be higher on the list to perfect over a place of interest halfway around the world that is only popular among local people. In short, Wikipedia is a technological tool that is still growing within its environment (internet) that is still being developed in our environment (Earth). In all actuality, we are an imperfect race trying to establish and maintain a perfect system.Brendan.Hunstad (talk) 18:13, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Making a Positive Impact on Wikipedia

In the article “Wiki Space: Palimpsests and the Politics of Exclusion” Mark Graham makes many interesting observations about Wikipedia that have profound effects on the project as a whole. Graham observes a similar point that we have touched on in class and that is the lack of diversity amongst Wikipedia’s contributors. It appears as if the vast majority of contributors are American white males, typically of the more nerdy variety. Graham argues that because of this lack of diversity, articles related to cultures outside of the typical contributor’s lexicon are often underdeveloped or misrepresented. Graham believes that most of the problems with Wikipedia stem from its contributor base. I believe it is true that the open access nature of Wikipedia is a sort of double edged sword. The unlimited freedom for anyone to contribute has created the world’s largest compendium of information but this same freedom opens the door for people to use the site for less than scrupulous means. This can foster mistrust and tarnish the reputation of Wikipedia, and being an encyclopedia Wikipedia cannot afford to lose people’s trust. I believe the views of Graham in this article have a clear relationship to our class’ study of social constructionism theory. Social constructionism holds that an individual’s identity is shaped by environment. More specifically, institutions such as family, church, school, government, nation and many others all have a profound effect on the molding of an individual. The individual is being shaped a certain way by their surroundings, perhaps without even realizing it. It is easy to understand how it may be a problem that the majority of the contributor base of Wikipedia had their identities shaped in very similar ways. Because they are American white men they are contributing knowledge to a global encyclopedia through the lens of a very specific world view. Social constructionism and a lack of diversity can very easily lead to misrepresentation as well as underrepresentation of articles related to other cultures. I believe our class has actually done some great work and made a positive impact on the representation of Appalachia. Many people believe editing an encyclopedia is something that should be reserved for ivory tower scholars of academia, I do not. I think this is why many people are hesitant to contribute to Wikipedia. They don’t really believe they have anything valuable to add. I believe that every person has loads of first hand experiences and insights that could be valuable in any number of places on Wikipedia. I wish that more schools would have classes similar to this one to introduce a much wider array of knowledge. Mkak8 (talk) 18:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

A Bias in Wikipedia?

In this article by Mark Graham, he really tries to open the reader’s eyes up to Wikipedia and how neutral the writing within it really is. He gives three well researched and well explained areas to make his point and focuses more on the geography of the writing more than the articles themselves. He provides several charts and a big list of references to make his point. I think that he wrote a very good article and it really goes into how much are these articles really written with a neutral standpoint and by an editor in that area which is very nice. He claims in his article that people from the areas being written about are what is misrepresented in Wikipedia. He uses examples of the other languages that Wikipedia is written in and how less they are used than English and the articles in them such as the Portuguese version are written about their areas more such as Portugal and Brazil rather than outside areas like the English version does so often. In concerns with the misrepresentation of Appalachia in Wikipedia we see that the writing of the articles about the area are more often done by people who do not live in Appalachia and sometimes might have the stereotypical view of the area like we have discussed in class so often. Just like in Graham’s article a biased view begins to take place when the articles are not written by the people that live their such as African countries being misrepresented, Appalachia is misrepresented in the same way because not as many people from the area write the articles about it. In the article he also talks about a town in Manchester that has more information about the soccer clubs within the town than other notable aspects. This can go in well with our reading on social construction because to people outside of that city writing on the article football is their main link to that city and sports are socially constructed to mean more than the shopping district of the town or the mosque within it. He also explains for a little bit about the talk pages in Wikipedia and how they are biased because “minorities” in the Wikipedia community such as woman are toned out because socially they are not viable within that community. Finally with my work in Wikipedia in Appalachia and the class as a whole, it broadens the view of the encyclopedia by having writers within the area of Appalachia which we have been living in for a few years actually write about the area we live in and can give a better knowledge of the area that we bring in that does not bring in any wrong views of the area and can make the representation more accurate and also add more to the articles and give a more in depth look into the area that removes the stereotypes that you do sometimes see within some articles.MattSchimm (talk) 20:00, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Staying Neutral in Wikipedia

In class we were talking about the gender gap on Wikipedia and how also there seems to be an uneven amount of diversity within the authors writing in Wikipedia. Graham’s title “Palimpsests” relates back to the point that articles can constantly be changed but within the history of articles there will still be some parts of the original article before editing was done. Grahams general idea of his article goes back to the Wikipedia portrays Appalachia with misinterpretations of stereotyping of the region and people living in Appalachian areas. In Mark Graham’s “Wiki space: Palimpsests and the Politics of Exclusion” he mentions the different types of persuasion in writing that usually goes unnoticed by the writer. It is easy to write in a way that may be a little bias about a topic without realizing you are being bias. Wikipedia may be portrayed as being a neutral and inviting website for the public to use and create articles in, however the writers generally are the same types of people, white males. In order for Wikipedia to not be bias there needs to be a greater variety of writers to advance the knowledge and experiences that different ages, genders, and races may have. With this being said, people who have never been in an Appalachian region should not be writing an article on Appalachian region, unless it is strictly information or statistics from a reliable source. This is how stereotypes occur, people who do not know any better often have certain opinions or they are bias on a topic without even realizing they are. Along with social constructionism, people learn and develop certain experiences and feelings depending on how they were brought up and how the people around them were. This class helped me learn to be careful when writing on a certain topic that I may feel strongly about, to make sure that I pay extra attention to the style of writing. It also has showed me that it is more difficult to write in a neutral style, because usually, I do not have to do that.TayMills (talk) 20:39, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia Bias

In Mark Graham’s "Wiki Space: Palimpsests and the Politics of Exclusion," he discusses the biases in Wikipedia and the whole encyclopedia in general. There are definitely many biases in Wikipedia and there are some people who will write an article one way, and someone else who would write and article a different way. In class we have been discussing biases, gender gap, and the neutrality of writing in Wikipedia, which Graham argues in his article. One of his main arguments is also that if you are going to write about a certain place, it is better to write about where you are from. If you write about somewhere that you actually know as opposed to somewhere you don’t, then it is more likely that you will have a better article. If they don’t know anything about what they are writing, then how can you be sure that the article is reliable? This also relates to our idea of social constructionism because the idea behind that is that our ideals are jointly constructed. A certain person writing about their hometown will include what they have learned by living there, and what ideas they have about that certain place.

With our work that we have done in Wikipedia, we have learned a lot about the stereotypes that people have been known to assume about Appalachia, and how those ideals may not be correct. Many of the articles have been written by people that have no idea what they are talking about, and just assume the stereotypes that they have heard. Honestly, if I had not been reading about Appalachia and been living in this region for 4 years now, I would still be assuming the same stereotypes that most people that do not live here assume. We have learned so much about how Wikipedia can actually be a good source to use, if it is used in the correct way. That is why it is important to have reliable sources when writing an article, because many people will be looking at it for their own use. This is another reason why actually knowing about your particular article is extremely important. Taking this class has opened up my eyes to how to use Wikipedia in the correct way, and also about not trusting all the stereotypes that one would assume about a particular region. E.Kassel (talk) 21:26, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Grahams eye opener

Graham suggest that there is a “terra incognita” or lack of representation for some country’s and an over representation of the united states by a small portion western males who contribute to the majority of Wikipedia. Although Wikipedia is to be un-bias and neutral he says that there is a possibility that there is some bias in them. I mean we are human and we can’t be completely un-bias can we? Although we as a class focus on Appalachia we bring a bit of bias to show how un-redneck the area is because we are from here and are not influenced by the media like the westerns who do about 90% of Wikipedia articles and are influenced by media. My article on the Albany airport proved this point. Before the article had basic information such as elevation and radio frequency’s. However the airport is a major factor to the community and area. It brings in jobs and is the largest runway in South East Ohio. This means corporations and wealthy business people can come into this area without going to Columbus Ohio or Charleston West Virginia and commuting to this area depriving Albany and Athens county of tax dollars generated from fuel, ramp fees, rentals and more. Wikipedia is trying to diversify is Wikipedia’s and gain a diverse amount of editors that are different genders, race and from other places then just the western part of the United states to collapse the notion of a “terra incognita”. I think what we are doing in our class is helping to get rid of the “terra incognita” notion. I think Grahams point about lack of diversity creates bias because westerners who wright about things they have no knowledge of gain most of their information form google and don’t quite know if what they are posing is accurate because for their lack of knowledge on the subject. Before reading this article I never really paid attention to the fact that there is bias. Not intentional bias but bias due to a lack of information and knowledge. Malcolm Pullom (talk) 03:00, 10 August 2014 (UTC)