Post 15

I think that Gee is talking about the tests and trials that people go through to make sure they are ready for the next level.  The teacher or one with the most experience on the subject matter teaches the student.  If the student isn’t ready to take the next step they are forced to remain at that level until they are ready to move on.  When the student has understood all the lessons and passed all the test/trials, only then will they be able to move onto the next level.

I’m going to use an example of a math class that I took.  Every week we’d learn subject matter and be quizzed and tested on this throughout the week.  As the course went on we would build upon the lessons that came before.  The quizzes and tests kept us in line for the final cumulative test.  There were several stages in this course that you needed to understand to do well on the series of exams.  If you didn’t maintain a C average you were forced to take the course again.

Post 14

1)      A discourse community has a broadly agreed set of common public goals

*Swales is trying to say that people in the discourse community have a known agenda or goals.  Everyone knows whats intended or whats trying to be achieved without being said.  My example is our rugby team, the goal is to dominate and it doesn’t need to be said

2)  A discourse community has mechanisms of intercommunication among its members.

                *Swales is saying that members of a discourse community have their own lingo or inside language.  A good example of this is the inside jokes we have on our team, I would never use the same language around people of authority as I do with the rugby team.

3)  A discourse community uses its participary mechanisms primarily to provide info ans feedback.

                *I think swales is saying that member of the DC look for different outlets of info to better enhance themselves.  Like getting more opinions from different sources.  I think of this getting injured but getting second even third opinions from doctors, just to see whats going on,

4)A discourse community utilizes and hence possesses one or more genres in the communicative furtherance of its aims.

                * I think this means that having one or more people with different talents to achieve goals or be more versitiile.  Again I go back to the rugby team, we have really fast kids playing the outside, the big trees in the front of the scrum, and the sure-tacklers at flanker.  All mixed together for a well oiled machine.

5)In addition to owning genres, a DC has acquired some specific lexis.

                * I believe this means a DC has its own Technical lingo that they understand.  Kind of like calling out plays for a quarterback. “roger” means the plays going right.  “Louie” means the plays going left.

6)A DC has a threshold level of members with a sutable degree of relevant content and discourse expense.

                *I think this refers to expiernce overall.  As time goes on people get older and know whats going on.  A veteran member of any kind of sports team will teach the rookies all they need to know

Pencils to Pixels

I feel that technology is shaping the future of the way we write, socialize/communicate, and learn.  Just look at our text lingo.  Sentences and words have been turned into acronyms nowadays.  I feel that using word to type up documents or to do assignments enables us to produce longer, quicker, and better products of writing.   Remember when we all had that handwriting class back in elementary school?  Slowly a computer class was brought in and programs like Mavis Beacon teaches typing were presented to us.  I have already taken 2 online courses here at OU so I can see that teaching and learning are already in the technology realm.  I feel that Baron likes the classical, sit down with pen and paper and create masterpieces, but he needs to realize that writing is headed to the technological age.

The Future of Literacy

The case study that I feel most connected to from the reading was Danielle DeVoss.  My parents always stressed reading to me.  I remember my dad would always ask me to read the sports section of the newspapers with him.  I was very young so I thought it was a bit confusing that an article could start at the front page and then be continued somewhere in the middle.  I felt like reading the sports was boring when I was young, I much rather read the comic section.  My dad would tell me if I did a good job reading the sports, we could move on to the comic portion of the newspaper.  My mother and I made numerous trips to the library together.  She had tons of books I remember; she was in nursing school at the time so those books were a little to advanced for me at the time.  I would take out the same couple of books time after time.  I’d always check out the “Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark” books.  The images and stories were so horrifying when I was young.  I remember the teacher used to let me bring the books in and after lunch, the kids in my class would sit around and read the book to each.  Every time was scary.

I have had many literacy sponsors in my life.  The biggest sponsor of this would have to be my parents.  I Believe that our parents are the first to educate us in our early lives.  They teach us things like manners and how to speak or language.  My father really pushed for academic success being that he never went to college.  My earliest memory was of him saying “get good grades and you’ll get to go to college.”  He still to this day calls me once or twice a week to check up on my academic adventures.  The next sponsor, I would say, would have to be schooling.  I attended both catholic and public schools through my years of elementary and high school.  I can say that the catholic schools taught me very good morals like how to be obedient, civil, and caring.  The Cleveland Public schools I attended were also nice.  Being smart and tough was a necessity.  Another main literacy sponsor I would have to say would be sports teams.  My parents put me in many athletic programs while I was growing up.  My coaches taught me the value of hardwork, determination, and consistency, though recently I’ve been struggling through the consistency part (earlier absences).

I feel that my access to these sponsors has been fairly adequate.  I mean they have helped a lot but it’s up to me to retain their lessons and learn as an individual.  I wish I was more technological savvy.  The Wiki assignment defiantly helped a bunch, but that is only a minor part of the whole technological world.  Recently, I’ve battling against self control.  But it’s a fight that I’m winning now.    

Wikipedia has always been a foreign realm to me.  That website was always the one that my high school teachers and most of my college professors told me not to use as a credible source of information.  I, in fact, as naïve as I was, thought it was just people, without the proper credentials, spewing out their opinions on a certain subjects.  After going through this interesting and eye-opening experience of creating a Wikipedia article, I realized that this website is a hub for all types of fantastic and useful information.  In this essay I am going to reflect on my experience with creating a fresh Wikipedia article.  This includes the many aspects of Wikipedia, how Wikipedia has enlightened me on writing, and how Wikipedia is helping to evolve the future of how information is transferred. 

            First and for most, creating A Wikipedia article was an illuminating experience, I got to see first hand the dynamics that make Wikipedia an internet marvel.  Wikipedia is like an informal encyclopedia, in an article in “The New Yorker”; Jimmy Wales suggests “Wikipedia is to Britannica as rock and roll is to easy listening,”(http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/07/31/06073fa_fact).  I felt like this analogy fit perfectly as well.

            One amazing element of Wikipedia is the Drawing Board.  This is like the headquarters section of Wikipedia. It includes information on how to use Wikipedia and on how to start your own article.  Also, the Drawing Board is the place where users can report abuse, vulgarity, and see copyright problem information.  When I first began my article this is where I started.  The Drawing Board led me to the Discussion Function of Wikipedia.  I needed to know if my article was notable enough to be on Wikipedia.  As I examined the guidelines on the Discussion Function I realized that it was time to create my article.  Let’s say that creating the article was fun and exhilarating, but when it got deleted I was mildly shocked and embarrassed.  Having been shot down by the Wikipedia guardians I jumped to the Discussion Function on my user page to find out why my article was eviscerated.  When I saw the reason why my page was terminated I went back and made improvements.  The second go-round was much better than the first, and I felt somewhat better.  In “Shitty First Drafts”, Anne Lamott declares “Almost all good writing begins with terrible first efforts.”(303).  This quote is exactly how my article went and with the many revisions I made my article came out decent in the end.

            In between all the clamor of the Wikipedia Drawing Board and Discussion Function I also visited the History Function.  In this section you can view the complete history on how an article started and how it looks up until this very day.  This is an amazing thing to see how article evolve over time.  I’d like to use my own analogy to describe how the History Function works for me.  Think of it as someone’s bare, hardwood floor living room.  The first step is to add a carpet, this is the first article created.  The room now looks better but it’s not enough, so you add all different kinds of furniture to the room.  You can constantly move the furniture around, add or subtract furniture until you feel comfortable.  But with a Wikipedia article the room is never finished, furniture can be moved and walls can be painted.  The same as information can be add or subtracted from articles.  This helped me to understand that though my article may not be perfect, others can go in and edit as they see fit.  This brings me to the Edit Function of Wikipedia.

            The Edit Function serves as a tool for people to go in and change things around in an article.  Throughout creating my article I continuously went in and used the Editing Function.  This constant revision was a main stable in my Wikipedia experience.  In “Toward Composing of Reading”, Robert J. Tierney and P. David Pearson note “Thus a writer will repeatedly reread, reexamine, delete, shape, and correct what she is writing” (184).  I was constantly going back and making little improvement here or there, whether it is taking information out, leaving it in, or adding it to my article.  Overall, the process of creating a Wikipedia article was enjoyable, but at times it was a little frustrating also.

            Even though Wikipedia is like an informal encyclopedia, it does have guidelines that one must follow.  These guidelines stick to the more “traditional” way of writing like proper citing, summary, and source retrieval.  I discovered that finding credible and noteworthy sources are a must for Wikipedia or any type of writing and reporting you do.  Another gift of knowledge that the Wikipedia experience has bestowed upon me is the accuracy of citing sources correctly.  After the guardians of Wikipedia cut me down I went back and did some touch up on my citing skills.  I discovered that all quotes and uncommon knowledge to a person should be citing properly.  Another thing that the Wikipedia guidelines stressed was taking a neutral tone or position.  Your article had to be clear of any bias towards the subject you are reporting on.  Wikipedia gave me a helpful little lesson in writing neutrality.  One of the biggest things that Wikipedia improved was my ability to summarize correctly.  I did not copy and paste my information nor did I change some of the words around from the original text.  Creating the Wikipedia article helped me to read, analyze, and put the information into my own words.

            Wikipedia is an Amazing phenomenon.  Wikipedia showed me that writing can be a collective, social, and multi faceted thing.  Socially, Wikipedia is amazing for transferring information and disputing about certain issues.  I never realized how much people knew about things that might not even matter.  People from all walks of life have a say on Wikipedia.  We can see how a text evolves and how the collective community tries to improve upon things written in Wikipedia.  There are so many phases in writing on Wikipedia.  I couldn’t just slap information down without the proper things in place.  Though these rules may be tough, they are also a necessity for any good writing piece.

            I believe that Wikipedia will help to bring about a renaissance in knowledge distribution in the future.  Wikipedia brings everyone together to discuss all types of information.  I love the Wikipedia slogan, “Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia”.  This brings useful and reliable information quickly to those who do not feel like opening an encyclopedia.  Jimmy Wales claims that he wants to, “distribute a free encyclopedia to every single person on the planet in their own language.”( http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/07/31/060731fa_fact).  Imagine that, everyone around the world working together to distribute and improve the quality of information being displayed on the internet.

            I feel that this is another fantastic way to dish out information.  I love the idea of having Wikipedia and the encyclopedia working together to keep the flow of accurate knowledge going.  Each outlet has its own advantages and disadvantages, but if we use both correctly, we all will benefit from the sources and knowledge that is at our hands. 

Works Cited

Lamott, Anne.  “Shitty First Drafts.”  Writing About Writing.

 Elizabeth Wardle and Doug  Downs.  Boston:  Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2011.   303.  Print.

           

Pearson, P. David and Tierney, Robert J.  “Toward Composing a Model of Reading.”   Writing

            About Writing.  Elizabeth Wardle and Doug Downs.  Boston:  Bedford/ St. Martin’s,

            2011.  184.  Print

Schiff, Stacy.  “Know it all:  Can Wikipedia Conquer Expertise?.”  The New Yorker.  The New

            Yorker.  31 July 2006.  Web.  9 Oct. 2011.

           

Shitty 1st Drafts

I believe that Lamont is trying to get her audience to realize that even the greatest writers have trouble starting.  She says that writers just don’t go to their desk, roll up their sleeves, and jump right into creating a masterpiece.  She does not want us to assume that writers can just spit great pieces of writing; instead you go through the grueling process of writing drafts.  She believes that the first stages of the drafts are like children, reckless and not held at fault for any of their mistakes.  Lamont feels like you just need to get something down on the page, just get the gears moving.  I think she says something like the first six pages of a draft might suck but somewhere in there those lines there is a beautiful beginning.  I also think Lamont feels like the process of writing is blocking all those little voices out in your head that distract you.  She goes on to extensively explain the way in which she does this…

                I think Wikipedia allows us somewhat to make a shitty first draft.  I mean there is that option to put your article up for review, but I feel like that kind of hurt my article in the long run.  I felt like the first article I submitted was way better then the second, but that how the Wikipedia guardians go I guess.

Tuning, Tying, and Training Texts

Barbara Tomlinson uses many metaphors to describe the process of writing in “Tuning, Tying, and Training Texts”.  Though I understood mostly all of her metaphors, the one about “refining ore for casting” jumped out to me the most.  It seems like whenever you start off with writing, you have this uncovered jumble of ideas, though they may be good are not ready for final submission.  You need to polish off or “refine” to get that final product that you are looking for.  The View History tab in Wikipedia enables us to view the previous submissions are articles.  We can learn valuable information from the view history  tab, we can see a constant revision process going on there.  I feel like the saying “you learn from your mistakes” fits in perfectly for this particular section in Wikipedia.  I feel like this section helps me take criticism about writing.  It was a little frustrating at first, but all in all the scrutiny faced on the discussion board aided my revision process.  I mean if we sift through the view history pages, we can see what is left and what was taken away.  This in turn enhances our ability to recognize what the Guardians of Wikipedia are looking for, and staying within our own writing style.Tunm