Final Preparation for 12/4: Wikipedia Project Home Stretch

Dear All,

As a courtesy reminder, you are -- in teams and/or individually -- finishing up your revision, editing, and polishing tasks on our Wikipedia article by the beginning of class time on Thursday. (I know that in some cases, late inspiration will hit and some of you will want to contribute new content, including examples and relevant case studies. That's perfectly fine. We have 48 hours to make this article really ours and really matter!) We'll have one final phase to navigate together in the first few moments of Thursday's class, but by and large, I am giving us all permission to take collective ownership of the piece as it is shaping up nicely. I realize this involves a bit of creative chaos, and that's why we'll have a few final moments together on Thursday to settle any disputes (should any arise) about formatting. (As I mentioned in my last post, collectively smoothing over with a group of writers as large as our class is challenging, but it can be done.) I am on hand between now and then, and I'm quite excited to see us work toward a finish.

You are also (per the Wikipedia assignment sheet) composing your Analytic Reflection for the Wikipedia Assignment. It's no secret that one of my desires is for you to master the art of critical reflection, and so think of this as a penultimate opportunity to reflect with some depth on your experiences and also teach us critical concepts in the process.

And finally, please do bring a shorter (less formal) reflection to class for my eyes only, letting me know how the Wikipedia project has gone for you.

See you on Thursday,

-Prof. Graban

Preparation for 12/2: Final Wikipedia Peer Review

Dear All:

Our Wikipedia (sandbox) space is up, and you can access it via Bb in the left-hand toolbar. Follow the link, log in with your Wikipedia credentials, and click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page to see the whole article as well as my introductory note to how we will work in that space.

(Be sure to log in, and be sure to click "edit" at the top of the page; if you don't log in, I cannot trace your work, and if you only "edit" a section, you will be limited in terms of what you can view in your sandbox.)

Section business ...

Section 1, I am asking you to also compose the Lead section to our article, since I think that will allow you to contribute more content. The Wikipedia <"Manual of Style"> has a section on authoring Leads that we looked briefly at earlier in the semester.

Sections 4 and 5, you are now the newly combined section 4. I did my best with copying content over from the Wikipedia team spaces; forgive me in advance if I mis-copied or overlooked something, and feel free to make changes as needed.

All sections, forgive me in advance if I mis-copied or overlooked something when it moved over from our G-Drive drafting space. Change as needed.

To get ready for peer review ...

Now that we have moved this into our shared space, individuals--as well as teams--should feel free to contribute, revise, and edit. We still have a lot of work to do to finish content, recombine the elements in the newly combined section, "clean" all our content, and ensure there are cohesion markers that help all subsections make sense in each section, and each section make sense to the whole article. 

Also, as readers of other teams' work, you as individuals can determine whether some examples and explanations are relevant to a particular section after all. Some may not make sense to you and may need revision, editing, rethinking, or eliminating. We now publicly own this space so it's up to everyone to make this make sense, not just the teams who drafted.

By Tuesday's class, our article needs to be finished so that during class we can start our fine-level proofreading, stylistic editing, and formatting, and I'll actually assign teams to different tasks as a way of dividing up labor. Folks, I won't lie--smoothing is one of the most difficult things to do for a Wikipedia project among a group this large. You're all writers; you all have opinions. For us, this means taking to heart coherence, cohesion, and moves of authorization, as well as being very careful with our claims and very purposeful with our examples. So, please keep in mind three things:

1. item 4. from Exercise 1 of today's workshop (handout in Bb)
2. the "avoidances or cautions" from Exercise 2 of today's workshop (handout in Bb)
3. Wikipedia's <Neutral Point of View> techniques and <Featured Article Criteria>

Have a great break,
-Prof. G

Preparation for Merged Style Workshop and Peer Review on 11/25

Dear All:

Our GDrive workspace won't be sufficient for us to do the kind of real-time workshop we need to do today with optional participation, so I will plan to merge today's workshop with next week's peer review into a single class session. Some of you are nervous about our timeline, but you need not be.

Please just bring Style and Working with Words to class on Tuesday (11/25) since you will be working individually and in groups out of both texts. I'll devote the first 30 minutes of Tuesday's class to our workshop on making authoritative claims that don't overstep Wikipedia's neutral-point-of-view policy (i.e., emphasis, rhythm and grace), and then I'll devote the latter 45 minutes of Tuesday's class to a peer review of our Wikipedia article in progress, which will by then be uploaded into a Wiki "sandbox" space. At that time, we'll also divvy up editing and formatting responsibilities so that each group has a task going into the final week.

What this means for today: If you can (given the circumstances), please make use of the time to finish up your respective sections of the article. All teams please note that I have inserted a note to you inside your GDrive working space, mainly suggesting global coherence statements, since I now have an idea of how all your pieces are coming together. It's coming along fine, believe it or not, but some teams are much further along than others; soon, we all need to catch up to each other, and I believe Teams 4 and 5 still have some merging of sections to work out.

Later today or tonight, I plan to move all of your completed sections outside of GDrive and into a Wiki sandbox space, so it's important that you have a full draft completed, and that your endnotes and sources are there. Moving it into the Wiki sandbox doesn't mean we can't continue to work on it; it just means that it's time for us to merge all sections together and start treating it as a whole, so please use today's time well if you can.

And as always, I'm here and in my office if you need me and I'm always available online for questions.

Many thanks, and have a good day today and a good weekend. Be safe and well, and see you Tuesday,

-Prof. Graban

Preparation for 11/20: Workshop on Rhythm, Grace (and Authoritative "Moves")

Dear All:

For Thursday, we're following the syllabus. However, in deference to some of the questions that came up during last week's Wikipedia workshop -- especially about reconciling a seemingly broad topic with seemingly specific claims from the sources you are reading -- I'd like to refocus the workshop on authoritative "moves," i.e., giving sentences and phrases the weight and transparency and clarity they need in order to be received as informative, viable claims.

That said, in addition to working through <SA #6> (which will allow you to get your feet wet editing in Wikipedia's sandbox environment), I'm asking you to read the following:

• the lesson on "Emphasis" in Style
• Working with Words pp. 94-95 (making sentences parallel), pp. 111-115 (getting words in the right order), and pp. 183-194 (quoting, semi/colons, hyphens and dashes).

As you're reading through WW, you'll likely alternate between useful discovery and pointless redundancy, but stick with it. Some of the conventions they point to will be useful for some of the sentences you have already composed in your Wikipedia space.

Finally, again, our emphasis will be on applying the editing workshop to our Wikipedia article in progress. So, please ensure that your group's writing space has a polished enough draft that we can actually get into it and do something useful.

See you Thursday,
-Prof. G

Preparation for 11/18: Portfolio Workshop

Hi All:

In advance of Tuesday's workshop on the final portfolio, please do the following:

• Review the assignment sheet so that you can ask -- and get answered -- any questions you have about scope, content, or organization.
• Decide on an organizational plan, i.e., chronological, topical/thematic, or some other organization, and either storyboard or make a list of all its linked components, i.e., all the components you're hoping to include in your portfolio from major assignments to individual blog posts. I'm primarily asking you to do this because questions will arise as you begin to envision what it's like to have to accommodate certain items or links, and I'd like you to have a concrete sense of how much effort it will take to put your particular portfolio together. As well, your organization will help to determine the nature of reflection and the amount of explanation you'll need to provide to help an unfamiliar reader navigate the portfolio and understand the significance of all its components. Please bring that organizational scheme to Tuesday's workshop, in some form.
• Decide on a design theme, and this can be fairly simple (especially if you are using blogger's skins), but I'll ask you to give it some thought ahead of time so that you can -- again -- consider any complexities of organizing information in advance. This might be a good time to review Barton/Kalmbach/Lowe <“Rhetorics of Web Pages”>.
• Begin drafting the longer, critical analytical reflection. This piece will naturally take some time and some thought, since it is more than an off-the-cuff reflection. It is somewhat formal, but moreover, it needs to be the centerpiece that helps a reader understand your intellectual pathway through the course. As always, it asks you to synthesize some of our critical texts from the semester to help genuinely convey your own understanding of what you have gained, if you feel you have gained, and how your writing, editing, or understanding of discourse has changed. Please bring whatever you have drafted to Tuesday's workshop, in some form.
• One final thing: if you are going to be featuring some of your weekly blog posts and/or blog responses from throughout the semester, I'll ask you to quickly edit them for clarity and accuracy. There are only 6 of them, and yet for some of you, these reflected some very significant moments throughout the course, and some very good writing, so you'll want to take the time to correct typos, insert missing words, fix misdirected or broken hyperlinks, clean up the textual formatting and spacing, and generally do what you can to improve the look and readability of the posts. This will probably be the quickest revision task of the whole portfolio, so I'd rather you get it done earlier than later.

See you next week,
-Prof. Graban

Preparation for 11/13: Wikipedia Project, Article Plan II

Hello, Everyone:

As you are working in your Google Drive spaces with your writing teams, please do keep in mind that -- in some cases -- the best sources you could be drawing from are the sources you have already read and mastered for the class. In other words, take this is an opportunity to look again at those sources that already reflect what you think to be true about public-sphere writing, since our main prerogative as Wikipedia editors is to construct an article that is as informative as possible. We do not need to convince anyone of the existence of the topic; rather, we are pointing to the topic's presence and usage (already) in what we have been studying. (And this would be true no matter what our chosen topic.)  

By the beginning of class time on Thursday, your group will need have a full and completed draft of your section in the group's wikipedia workspace. After spending some time considering the fallibility of some of Wikipedia's existing articles, we'll be examining our article -- section by section -- for fallibility and neutral-point-of-view. Most significantly, we'll spend time considering whether there is too much overlap between sections and/or too little coherence and cohesion throughout the whole piece. 

Our goal by the end of the class will be to have made final content decisions about what stays in what section, what needs to be moved around, and what might go altogether. In other words, this is the time when our individual group ethos will need to fold more broadly into a whole class ethos. That said, each group should expect to have some part of their section challenged, rethought, reorganized, and even renegotiated.

If we can do that successfully, then we have one more week to complete the next step, which is for each group to get their section completely finalized according to a set of shared editing criteria. In the last few days of class, we will then work on smoothing over the whole (but more on that, later, since that involves a couple of steps I'll be completing on our behalf).

Please bring to class -- or otherwise have access to in class -- the sources you have used to compose your section of the article. We have a lot to get accomplished in our 75 minutes. Please also bring your assignment sheet (just for reference).

See you on Thursday, if not before,
-Prof. Graban

Preparation for 11/6: Case Study #4 (Copyrights and Wrongs)

Folks, we're following the syllabus, which means we'll examine our final case study on Thursday, on "Copyrights and Wrongs." We're <blogging> as usual on Ridolfo/Rife, Wiebe, and Liu. If respondents want to get started early, they can feel free to respond to some of last week's posts (on Zittrain, Hood, and Gates), so long as they find a way to bring them into conversation with this week's readings. In truth, there is much to discuss between and among these two case studies, and we will likely find ourselves returning to ethics and fallibility at some point during Thursday's discussion.

Also, group spaces have been constructed for Wikipedia working teams; you'll find them linked from our Wikipedia work space in Bb.

Finally, if you have not yet done so, please sign up for a <Policy Argument Feedback Conference>.

Onward, and see you on Thursday,
-Prof. Graban

Preparation for 11/4: Wikipedia Project Article Plan I

Dear All:

We finished class today with a serious charge -- we need to better understand what Wikipedia is going to require of us in terms of ethical behavior, fallibility, reciprocity, and rhetorical velocity. Our participating in that environment does mean that we are agreeing to a set of shared guidelines and guiding principles, so we are not jumping in cold. However, even with those guidelines in place, there is still room for us to misunderstand some Wikipedia principles and there is plenty of room for error and harm. Misunderstanding and error and harm are what we want to avoid!

I read your group blog comments after class today, and I think a few groups have come up with excellent definitions of "ethics" or "fallibility" that are specific to writing and editing in that medium. I also think a few groups made some excellent connections among today's readings so as to justify those new definitions for that medium. When we convene on Tuesday, I'll go over the definitions I think are most useful to guide us. There are four things I'll need you to do in advance of Tuesday's class.

Individual: Review

Review Zittrain's chapter and Hood's web-based case study if you hadn't read them that closely for today, mainly because each of them does discuss particular aspects of the Wikipedia community that we'll need to keep in mind.

Team: Fleshing of Outline

Visit our Wikipedia Work Space (via Bb) and see that I integrated your outlines into a single draft outline for our article. Several teams put in a tremendous amount of work on their outlines which made my task easier because I understood why you outlined what you did. By class time on Tuesday, I am asking all teams to begin to flesh it out. Instructions are included directly in the Wikipedia Work Space, and at this early stage, don't worry too much about overlap. It is common in Wikipedia articles for some sections to echo each other, since all subtopics work together to create the same intertext. Please do as well as you can and as much as you can; the more your team contributes to our shared outline before Tuesday, the further along we will be as a class. I will ask only that each team color-code their contributions, so that I can keep track of who does what.

Individual: Creation of Wikipedia Account

Create a Wikipedia account and establish a username. Go to <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Username_policy> and think about how anonymous you’d like to be on the internet. Then, go to <Wikipedia English> and from the "Main Page, click "Create Account" (in the top right tab) to register for an editorial account on Wikipedia. Please just keep track of your username so that next week I can collect them all. If you get stuck, <this video> will give you step-by-step instructions for registering an account, once you have chosen a username.

Individual/Team: Come Prepared

Please bring your laptops and/or production devices to class on Tuesday so that you can be ready to work. Please also bring -- in print, digital, or electronic (linked) form -- all of the sources that your team has decided would make good contributions for writing our article. Hint: There should be many of them, given the level of detail that our outline contains so far. Remember all of the places you have to draw from in order to gather sources. It wouldn't surprise me if we started with 2 dozen sources and added or subtracted from there. You all did a lot of good brainstorming this week.

See you on Tuesday and I'm very much looking forward to it,
-Prof. Graban

Case Study Group Preparation: Ethics and Fallibility

Working Backwards from Gates

• Part I. Pick one or two of Gates's most provocative claims (about integrating the American mind). What can you find in Hood's essay or Zittrain's chapter that might challenge, disrupt, or possibly move the claims further? Compose your response as a "comment" below.
• Part II. Then, look over Best's article called "Damned Lies and Mutant Statistics" in Bb Genre Samples, Case Study #1. We'll talk about it together during our class discussion.

Unpacking Zittrain

• Part I. If we had to pick the principal (or most significant) parallal that Zittrain draws between road safety and how he presumes Wikipedia can work (in an ideal world), what would that be? What can you find in Gates's essay or Hood's essay that necessarily underscore this or support it? Compose your response as a "comment" below.
• Part II. Then, look over Best's article called "Damned Lies and Mutant Statistics" in Bb Genre Samples, Case Study #1. We'll talk about it together during our class discussion.

Working Forward from Hood

• Part I. What claims about the pedagogical value of Wikipedia (according to Hood) do we also see reflected in Zittrain's "Rise of Wikipedia," "Price of Success," or "Value of Netizenship" sections? Should we be challenging them? Compose your response as a "comment" below.
• Part II. Then, look over Best's article called "Damned Lies and Mutant Statistics" in Bb Genre Samples, Case Study #1. We'll talk about it together during our class discussion.

Preparation for 10/30: Wikipedia Group Outline and Case Study #3 (Ethics and Fallibility)

Dear All,

There are two main happenings on Thursday:

Reading and Blogging for Case Study #3 ("Ethics and Fallibility")
We're following the syllabus, so there are no surprises here. This week's case study will be based on our critical readings by Gates, Hood, and Zittrain. I think you'll enjoy them. Remember that several of you are on the <blogging schedule> to initiate posts, while the rest of you are on the schedule to respond. It's late in the game this semester, and I have given you lots of attentive feedback on your blogging, so please impress me (and each other).

Group Outline for Wikipedia Article (due by 2:00 p.m. on 10/30 in our Wikipedia space)
Before Thursday's class, you will need to be in touch with all members of Wikipedia working team and start generating the following in our Google Drive workspace :
 

1. A potential outline for our shared topic ("Public Sphere Writing"). If it were up to your group, what structure would our article follow? Please be as detailed as you would like, outlining not only a possible top structure for the article, but possible subtopics as well. If you are uncertain of how detailed the organization can be, please review Wikipedia pages on similar or related topics, as well as the project pages from <SA #4>. (See also Wikipedia project pages on <Article Development>, <Article Creation>, and <Featured Articles>.) You'll notice that every Wikipedia page has to contain certain elements.
2. A brief reading list or list of sources that represent not only what you have read and what you think will feasibly contribute to our topic, but also sources you may have come across from other classes, from the bibliographies of what we have already read, or new sources you have discovered on your own. This means start gathering relevant sources from “Critical Texts,” “For Further Reading,” and “Case Studies & Genres” (if relevant). 

Immediately after Thursday's class, I will compile all outlines and bibliographies into one, and then I will send out the next set of instructions to all Wikipedia teams to complete before class next Tuesday (11/4).
 
This is part of your process work for the Wikipedia project, and the onus is on all of us to do it well. All phases of the project should involve source gathering and exploration, so that we make the best writing and editing decisions. Work hard, but have fun with it! The more efficiently you work together, the better able I am to work with your team.
 
Looking forward to it,
-Prof. Graban

Policy Argument Feedback Conferences

Hello All:

As we did for the Sci/Tech Blog Assignment, we'll discuss your Policy Argument Assignment via face-to-face (f2f) conferences, during which we can talk about how your delivered genre did or did not meet the assignment objectives, how well it informed or where you struggled to inform through it, what you think went well about it, and how you might improve on or revise it for your portfolio. We'll talk a lot, of course, but you'll take notes so that you can get the satisfaction of fairly immediate and thorough feedback on the second major assignment of the semester, and on your other short assignments thus far. These conferences are required, so please don't delay in claiming a spot on our <schedule>.

-Prof. Graban

Preparation for 10/23: Meaning/Form Workshop and Policy Argument Peer Review

Folks, for Thursday you'll see we'll begin class with a workshop looking at Meaning-Form relationships. Then, we'll peer review your Policy Arguments, and I'll have a worksheet to guide you.

We're reading out of Style and reading an online excerpt on "rhetorics of web pages" in Barton, Kalmback, and Lowe's open-access book called The Writing Spaces Web Style Guide. Even if you are not constructing a web-based policy argument, this will still be relevant to our discussions about hypermediated forms of policy arguments. To be fully ready for Thursday's peer review, please bring Style and Working with Words, as well as your laptop with a downloaded or readily available copy of your completed draft of the Policy Argument. Or if your Policy Argument form is going to be paper-based and/or circulating in print hard copy, then please bring 1 good copy of it to share. Your argument should be complete and in as finalized a form as you can get it, though I did mention today that I understand some delivery forms shift and change as a result of peer review, and that may be the case with yours.

If you're still stuck, still wondering, still wanting to tie together loose pieces of knowledge-making as we near the end of this sphere, let me just remind you of the good work and thinking you have already done that is documented in our Bb class notes. Now is a good time to look over the swath of notes we have generated together since Sep. 25, because it's likely that one of those documents -- whether it is the list of key terms we defined to help us get in the mindset of policy arguments, or the gridding that we did during Case Study #2, or the way we discussed "hypermediation" or "citizen criticism" -- that may make something make concrete sense for you.

Finally, and I apologize for letting this preparation post go on so long, I'll document here that in today's class, by a vote of 13 - 8 - 3, you selected "remediation" as the topic of our Wikipedia article. (The other terms that garnered votes were "citizen journalism" and "collaborative journalism.") Please take 48 hours to let that notion settle and I'll check in on Thursday for "buyer's remorse." I offer you this settling period because it's clear to me that you -- as a class -- are immensely talented and have a real and critical understanding of what could be accomplished through a Wikipedia article, so I want to ensure that the topic is something we can all do together (given our shared expertise) but also is interesting and viable enough that you would want to do it together.

See you on Thursday,
-Prof. Graban

Preparation for 10/21: (More on Activist Genres and) Wikipedia Project Introduction

Dear All:

For Tuesday, we're following the syllabus, giving you an opportunity to draft your <Policy Argument> and/or review our Bb notes for this sphere so far and/or submit the second <Analytical Essay>.

However, in addition, please remember to come to class with two (2) viable topics for our class Wikipedia project. I'll ask you to weigh several factors as you choose topics, and to prioritize them this way:

• what you think we can claim as our shared expertise (in this class)
• what you think is neglected or under-represented in Wikipedia
• and this could include a <stub> or an article that Wikipedia has been identified for <expansion> or an existing article that needs significant rewriting.

We'll spend the first half of class considering the various forms and embodiments of activist genres, and the second half of class discussing the Wikipedia project and selecting our shared topic.

Many thanks and see you on Tuesday,
-Prof. Graban

Preparation for 10/16: Appealing to Empathy and Reason PLUS Citizen Investigation, Manifestos, Activist Genres (Combined)

Dear All, as promised we'll be combining both days' discussion into one on Thursday (10/16), so I appreciate the mini-discussions that surfaced on your blogs today. (I'm trying to work some of them into Thursday's lesson plan).

That said, the only change to the syllabus is that I need you to please bring Tuesday's readings (and any notes) so you have them ready to access for Thursday's discussion. As well, <SA #4> is due (per syllabus).

On the syllabus, you'll see that we had originally planned to discuss "Wikipedia article pitches"; in light of our schedule change this week, we will discuss them together, but nothing is due in advance.

See you very soon,
-Prof. Graban

10/14 Class on Blog Today

Folks, in the event that classes are cancelled today due to the weather advisory, I'm going to proactively ask you to conduct a discussion on the blog in place of today's class. On Thursday, I will be combining both discussions ("Appealing to Empathy and Reason" AND "Citizen Investigation, Manifestos, and Activist Genres"), so please come prepared and with readings. However, so as not to completely lose one class day, I am going to ask you to simulate part of today's discussion right here on the course blog by responding to two (2) prompts below. Please note I am asking for this activity to be done during class time, 2:00-3:15 p.m. today. That will be your attendance and participation for the day.

First and foremost, select a genre as a "case" on/through which you will respond to your prompts. For your genre/case, I'll ask you to select one of the "Resolutions" from our Bb folder (in "Cases and Genres"), or Nakasa's "Writing in South Africa," or Alexander's "The New Jim Crow," or Bouie's "Criminal Justice Racism," or Jason Parham's "It's Time We Treat Police Brutality ..." (identified as "gawker blog" in Bb "Case Study #2").

Next, write in response to two (2) of the prompts below, by composing a post to your own blog that responds to them, weaving them together if you so desire. Then, please respond to two (2) of your classmates' posts (which you'll find on their blogs).

• Of all the terms that Lazere introduces and illustrates, which 3 or 4 most closely align with Corbett and Eberly's discussion of citizen criticism, and then, how do you see them at work in your selected genre/case? Note that I'm not only asking you to explain and unpack the connections, but to infer them somewhat, since they may not be explicit.

• According to Corbett and Eberly, what could spectator culture (or consumer culture) have to do with our ability to argue well in the public sphere when those arguments are partially mediated as/through blogs? What are the most compelling reasons that Corbett and Eberly give for why this is important, why it might succeed, and how it could fail -- and how do those reasons align with Rettberg's discussion? Note that your best way through this may be to focus your response on one of Rettberg's key arguments about "blog/ging," "community," "networks," "engagement,"and even "citizen bloggers" (if you want to revisit what we read previously from her book). In other words, you're extending Corbett/Eberly's theory towards blogging in particular based on the alignments and disalignments you see between their arguments and Rettberg's.

• Obviously, today's readings are setting us up to think more about citizen criticism. Do the two authors you read for today in any way take up, build on, forward, complicate, or disrupt anyone's notion of citizen criticism from earlier in the semester? (I'm thinking specifically about Miller/Shepherd, Kaufer, McDonald, or Jones, but you are welcome to consider other authors we have read). As you think about how to create your intertext between today's authors and other authors we have read, you might think about how to use your selected genre/case in order to demonstrate what can go right or wrong in citizen criticism.

-Prof. Graban

Preparation for 10/14: Appealing to Empathy and Reason

Folks, we're following the syllabus and reading as usual -- another excerpt from Rettberg's Blogging, as well as shorter essays by Donald Lazere and Ed Corbett and Rosa Eberly. However, for anyone who might like a sneak preview of some (more) hypermediated arguments we will be discussing and/or to review the ones we discussed last class, here are relevant links:

• RSA's Animation of Evgeny Morozov's <"The Internet in Society"> (this is also inside our folder marked "Photo Essays" in Bb "Cases and Genres") 
• Various "Resolutions" in our Bb "Cases and Genres"
• Jason Parham's <"It's Time We Treat Police Brutality as a National Crisis"> on gawker.com (this is also inside our folder marked "Case Study #2" in Bb "Cases and Genres")
• Sharon Daniel's <"Public Secrets">
• Paul Shoebridge and Michael Simon's <"Pinepoint Revisited">

See you next class,

-Prof. Graban

Policy Argument Proposal Deadline -- Extended

Dear All:

I have extended the deadline for the Policy Argument Project Plan until 5:00 p.m. on Friday, 10/10.

You're welcome, and this is probably one of the last extensions I'm going to make, given that you're all very bright. Remember that you have had this assignment sheet in hand since September 30 -- and it was loaded onto Bb earlier than that, and a brief description of the assignment with posted deadlines has been up on our blog since the beginning of the term. In other words -- the information is available to you, so I'm always holding you accountable for it.

Remember, too, that this is not a formal proposal, but rather a planning proposal. It will enable a dialogue between you and me. It will represent the beginning of that dialogue so that I can respond to your project idea.

You should not expect to know every detail about your Policy Argument yet because we are still working through the sphere; however, that doesn't mean you shouldn't start grappling with the assignment, and yes -- you know by now -- every assignment I give you will be one that requires you to grapple. Please get used to that; you came through the Sci/Tech Blog just fine.

In preparing your projecct plan, please read through the Policy Argument assignment sheet carefully. You might also review your class notes and/or check out our notes in Bb, as I upload the notes almost as soon as we generate them. Figuring out this assignment requires a kind of synthesis of knowledge that I'm holding you to because I can hold you to it. (Shall I say it again? You came through the Sci/Tech Blog just fine.)

Have a good and productive weekend,
-Prof. Graban

Preparation for 10/9: Place, Time, Logic of Hypermediacy

Dear All, we're reading and blogging as usual, per syllabus, but two things to remember:

1. you're selecting between Killingsworth's chapters, so feel free to choose either appeals to place or appeals to time
2. we'll be examining/investigating some mediated public arguments, and I suspect that will give us an opportunity to discuss some of your concerns about the Policy Argument assignment (so bring your assignment sheet, of course). I may even ask some of you to talk with us about your ideas for the assignment as they progress. It will be a great opportunity for you to get clarity on the scope and nature of the task before submitting your e-mail proposal to me.

Some of you may recognize the term "hypermediacy" from other readings you have done--or, more specifically, from Jay David Bolter and Richard Grusin's Remediation. (David Blakesley, a contributor to Kairos journal, offers a quick gloss of Bolter and Grusin's concepts <here>, including "hypermediacy" among other terms.) To clarify, we're going to examine this concept of hypermediacy to determine whether it has anything to offer us as writers/editors of mediated social policy arguments, as Carolyn Handa argues that it does. We'll also consider whether some of its aspects can be useful even in less explicitly mediated arguments (as in, arguments delivered through alternative media). And finally, we'll bear witness to how certain policy arguments get delivered.

See you Thursday and looking forward to it,
-Prof. Graban

Preparation for 10/7: Workshop on Conflict Levels and SA #3

Dear All:

We are following the syllabus as usual -- no changes! As a reminder, please bring back your case study materials to Tuesday's class meeting, since we are extending the case study into next week and performing our workshop on those genres.

See you then, if not before,
-Prof. Graban

Added on 10/7: Folks, after our workshop today, I'll be directing each group to answer some of the following questions. You can feel free to compose your response as a "comment" on this post.

Today, we're synthesizing principles that may help us better understand Kaufer's "levels of conflict" in a way that is meaningful to making policy arguments in the public sphere. I'm not so sure that the best way to use Kaufer's article is simply to apply one or more of his stock issues to what we're doing. Instead, I think Kaufer gives us several options for understanding how policy conflicts are diagnosed, but it's up to us to decide how his classification of conflicts fits with our other logical, rhetorical, and discursive knowledges, and what questions this raises for public sphere writing on potentially polarizing issues. So -- onward! Please answer one of the following questions:

1)  How does one of the texts you discussed present other possibilities for responding than just dis/agree? Based on how the writer uses historical evidence, please respond in terms of some of the things you analyzed for today (e.g., claim structure, stasis level, conflict analogy, stylistic "ethics," value terms, clarity, etc.). Whatever you do -- and with the full knowledge that the writer's language is not the only factor in this discourse -- please try to build a coherent theory of how this text uses history to make a policy argument, or how it uses history to respond to a problem of discourse. "Building a coherent theory" requires more than just making assumptions about what the writer does or what the audience knows, and it requires more than just making generalizations.

2)  In one of the texts you discussed, where do you see conflict and perspective most clearly? Where are you included or excluded as a reader? Drawing on some of today's concepts (e.g., claim structure, stasis level, conflict analogy, stylistic "ethics," clarity, etc.) please try to build a coherent theory explaining why/how this has occurred. Pay special attention to the role of key terms in the text -- especially if you think certain time-tested definitions of a term are being challenged, or if you think a term is being used significantly but without explicit definition or discussion. Again, "building a coherent theory" requires more than just making assumptions about what the writer does or what the audience knows, or making generalizations.

3)  Revisit one of the texts you discuss and decide whether it qualifies as a “simulation” of an argument or whether it qualifies as a real “ethical deliberation” (Jones 158). Justify your choice in Jones’s terms. Also, justify your choice in Kaufer's claim about weight of policy conflicts versus scale of conflict (61). Finally, justify your choice in terms of some of the other things you gridded for today (e.g., stylistic "ethics," clarity, word choice or ideographs, etc.). It's possible you will find a statement similar to what Williams and Bizup might call an "ethical violation of style" (e.g., obscurity, misdirection, subversive clarity, opacity) (Style lesson 11) or what Jones might call a violation of “The Usage Rule” (177). If so, explain how that occurs.

4)  Is there anything in one of the texts you discussed that acts like a "value" term or an "ideograph"? The concept of "Ideograph" was popularly coined for rhetoric by Michael Calvin McGee, although the word in its general definition has existed for some time. McGee's "ideograph" is a word that uses abstractions in order to develop support for a political position (e.g., "freedom," "liberty," "justice," "pursuit of happiness," etc.). Not just any term can be an ideograph, but if -- in the context of discourse -- the word carries ideological assumptions and inspires familiar associations among an audience, it is likely functioning this way. Please draw on some of the concepts we analyzed for today in explaining your ideograph.

Preparation for 10/2: Case Study #2, Complexity in/and Action

Hello, Everyone:

In preparation for our second Case Study, I'd like the class to read/prepare in groups, giving each group a set of materials to browse in advance of class.

I will ask everyone to review Kaufer's and McDonald's essays, and to read Jones's "Finding the Good Argument" (all in Bb). Those will be our critical tools for navigating the case study on Thursday, along with Style, which we might dabble into if there is time.

And then, I'll ask the following groups to read/annotate these genres before we meet on Thursday. These are all in "Case Study #2," nested inside the folder entitled "Case Studies & Genres" in Bb:

• last name beginning with A-D
• please look at Alexander "The New Jim Crow," Bouie "Criminal Justice Racism," and Christian "Alexander Interview on New Jim Crow"

• last name beginning with E-M
• please look at Bouie "Criminal Justice Racism," Bullard "Race Response to Katrina," Klein "Beyond a Simple Solution," and Constantin "Lunchlines"

• last name beginning with N-V
• please look at Klein "Beyond a Simple Solution," Nat Nakasa's "Writings," and the informational pieces in the NYT and Rand Daily Mail about Nakasa 

Come ready to share your notes with the class on Thursday.

Looking forward to it,
-Prof. Graban

Preparation for 9/30: Conflict and Perspective

Dear All:

We will most likely spend the first few minutes of Tuesday's class blogging in groups to prepare for our discussion of David Kaufer's "A Plan for Teaching the Development of Original Policy Arguments" and James McDonald's "I Agree, But ...". In the interest of helping you prepare, I offer you some questions to guide your reading:

1. McDonald will argue for a specific understanding of "citizenship" and a specific understanding of "deliberation" in order to put forward his theory of rhetorical engagement for the public sphere. As you read his chapter, keep track of the various characteristics and qualities that citizens and deliberation should have. It may help you to call these out in the margins as you read, or to construct a separate list; whatever you do, try to just call out or note the qualities and characteristics that make sense to you, as you navigate his intertext. 
2. Based on that list of qualities/characteristics you have compiled, why do you think McDonald selected Le Suroit (the gas-fired power plant) as a case study? In other words, in his discussion of Le Suroit (pp. 202-04), how do you see his expectations of "deliberation" or "citizenship" playing a role?
3. McDonald articulates a method for analyzing public debates--his "inductive, rhetorical approach" (pp. 204-13). As you read through his case study, keep track of how this method works. In what ways is it similar to, or different from, Kaufer's "Levels of Policy Conflict Analysis" (pp. 62-69)? Consider all of the ways that these two analytical methodologies require something of their analyzers, and consider whether their assumptions about "deliberation," "citizen," "discourse," and even "rhetoric" might align or not align with each other.
4. Ultimately, McDonald seems interested in preparing public citizens to deliberate better, while Kaufer seems interested in teaching the arts of developing policy arguments. Why does each of them write? In other words, what justification does each author provide why there is a need to deliberate better or construct more original policy arguments? Why, for Kaufer, are "stock issues" not enough? And why, for McDonald, are "anti-" positionings not enough?
5. Of the terms we began defining last week--symbiosis, empathic, communality, embodiment, aesthetic sense--which one(s) seem(s) most relevant to each of these chapters we read for today? Why?  
6. Of the articles we read last sphere, which one(s) seem(s) most relevant to what you read for today? Why?
7. Which one of Kaufer's "levels" of policy conflict (pp. 58-59) do you think best reflects McDonald's "accepting key opinions" (pp. 206-13)? Be willing to explain why using details from his case study.

Looking forward to our discussion,

--Prof. Graban

Sci/Tech Blog Feedback Conferences

I'll be giving you feedback on the Sci/Tech Blog Assignment in person, via face-to-face (f2f) conferences, during which we can talk about how your blog did or did not meet the assignment objectives, how well it informed or where you struggled to inform through it, what you think went well about it, and how you might improve on or revise it for your portfolio. We'll talk a lot, but you'll take notes so that you can get the satisfaction of fairly immediate and thorough feedback on the first major assignment of the semester, and on your other writing so far. These conferences are required, so please don't delay in claiming a spot on our <schedule>.

-Prof. Graban

Preparation for 9/23: Workshop #1, Rhetorical Moves

Folks, again we're following the syllabus!

This means that on Tuesday we'll have our first dedicated workshop on Working with Words and Style, so I have asked you to read sections out of each text before Tuesday's class. Laptops and books will be needed.

If you decide to tackle the <Analytical Essay> in this sphere, please remember that it is due on Tuesday, as well. I have extended the deadline to 7:00 p.m. from 2:00 p.m. (You're welcome.)

See you then (if not before),
-Prof. Graban

Preparation for 9/18: Citizen Journalism, White Papers, and Explanatory Genres

Folks, you're doing great so far in working out your struggle with multiple editorial demands and writerly concepts. Yes, the composition and construction of the Sci/Tech Blog assignment is asking you to fire on all cylinders, as you have to keep in mind not only what you're observing in mediated public discourse, but also what we're learning about it, which sometimes urges us to rethink what we observe. As well, you're doing the hard work of figuring out your principal challenge, which will be to re/create a plausible narrative that allows you to make good and transparent use of someone else's research (which you or may not choose to enhance with research of your own).

There is one final analytical step I think we need to make -- understanding the "white paper" genre, and observing how that genre already does some of the transforming and re-narrativizing that we need to do with highly technical information. So, we'll spend Thursday's class period focusing on this genre, and I'll offer you time to complete Short Assignment #2 in class, so that you have the benefit of a workshop environment. You can find preparation notes linked to that assignment description. Please come prepared.

Please bring with you Style and Working with Words! We are now entering the time in the semester when we need to have both books handy.

See you then,
-Prof G

9/16: In-class Discussion of Blogging as Social Action

Hello, Everyone:

We will spend the first part of today's (9/16) class discussing what Rettberg and Miller/Shepherd argue about blogs as genre. I will be especially interested to know where their claims may rub against or conflict with how you understand "blogging" or "citizen journalism." Our goal will be to recognize the take-away concepts in each article, and to consider the possibilities and limitations of those concepts.

After our discussion, I will provide you with a short list of blogs to examine in a guided fashion, and then I'll ask you and your partner(s) to respond to one of the following questions in some depth. You can choose to respond as an editor or a writer, since you will be playing both roles in the construction of your sci/tech blog. Whichever role you decide to play, please remember that this is more than just a class analysis activity; as you compose your response to the question below, I need you to formulate a real sense of what questions or concerns you have about your own sci/tech blog, and let your response begin to address them:

1. How does Miller and Shepherd's discussion of genre reflect other genre theories you may have studied, in English, EWM, or media studies classes? Or, if you're new to to the idea of genre, then try to unpack the quote by Berkenkotter and Huckin that they use in the third paragraph of their article. In a way, that quote -- and that paragraph -- holds the genealogy of Miller and Shepherd's genre theory. Do you think the assumptions they make about genre generally hold up when applied to blogs -- to the blog you just examined? What must you keep in mind, practically and concretely, as you construct your blog for next week?
2. What is "kairos" in Miller and Shepherd's argument? How is it significant? What does it mean that subjectivity is a product of time and place, formed in interaction with a kairos (second paragraph in final section of the article)? Do you think the assumptions they make about kairos generally hold up when applied to blogs -- to the blog you just examined? What must you keep in mind, practically and concretely, as you construct your blog for next week?
3. Consider Liebling's 1960 statement about free speech, or free press (Rettberg quotes it in the beginning of her chapter on "Citizen Journalism"). Unpack it, for its assumptions and implications. Why do you think Rettberg opens her chapter with it? Does it apply today, and if so, how does it apply -- especially in light of the notes we compiled as a result of our Jonah Lehrer case analysis? If it does apply, what assumptions do you think Rettberg needs you (or exhorts you) to keep in mind in the construction of your own sci/tech blog?
4. What do you see as the principal justifications or main reasons why Rettberg compares the "blogger" to a "citizen journalist"? And then, what are the main reasons or principal justifications for why this could be a tricky comparison? If it helps, try answer this question by using one of the specific examples Rettberg provides, e.g., Columbine, Baghdad, etc.
5. What is "symbiosis" in Rettberg's argument? (This term appears near the end of her chapter on "Citizen Journalism," but the concept is implied all the way through her book.) How is it significant? Do you think the assumptions she makes about generally hold up when applied to blogs -- to the blog you just examined? What must you keep in mind, practically and concretely, as you construct your blog for next week?

Feel free to compose your group response by adding an in-depth "comment" to this post.

-Prof. Graban

Preparation for 9/16: Blogging as Social Action

Folks, again we're following the syllabus! Tuesday is another day of discussion blogging, so please check the <blogging schedule> to find out whether you are initiating or responding. All posts and responses are due to your own blogs by 12:00 p.m. (noon) on Tuesday. When we convene as a class, we'll think about blogging as citizen journalism, and some of the ways this enhances--or complicates--our writing and editing imperatives in the sci/tech sphere. We'll also decide whether Miller/Shepherd have successfully argued for blogs as social action genres.

Looking forward to it,
-Prof. Graban

Preparation for 9/11: Rhetorical Life of Scientific Facts

Folks, we're following the syllabus! Thursday is our first day of discussion blogging, so please check the <blogging schedule> to find out whether you are initiating or responding. All posts and responses are due to your own blogs by 12:00 p.m. (noon) on Thursday. When we convene as a class, we'll think about the various narratives that scientific discourse takes on when it goes public, i.e., we'll consider its many transformations by considering all of its aspects--from logic to form to delivery.

Looking forward to it,
-Prof. Graban

Preparation for 9/9: SA #1, Sci/Tech Sphere and Sci/Tech Blog

Hello, Everyone:

Please remember that you are posting your first <Short Assignment (SA #1)> directly to your own blog. If the URL to your blog isn't showing up at right, that means I don't yet have the address to your blog and must have it ASAP (else I can't give you credit for SA #1).

On Tuesday, we're ready to jump straight-away into deconstructing the <Sci/Tech Blog Assignment> and we'll talk a bit more about the first "sphere" of the course: Sci/Tech Writing.

Your in-class analysis of the Lehrer Controversy on Thursday generated some good notes, although we are not quite finished complicating it for all its worth. So, please review our notes on the "Lehrer Case Analysis" (in Bb) before coming to class on Tuesday, since we will likely start there.

Although Tuesday is not technically one of our workshop days, your bringing a laptop will still be very helpful for our class discussion.

Looking forward to it, as always,
-Prof. Graban

Preparation for 9/4: Case Study #1, Earning the Public's Trust

Hello, Everyone:

In preparation for our first Case Study, I'd like you to browse the relevant materials in our Bb site ("Case Study #1," nested inside the folder entitled "Case Studies & Genres"). It is not necessary for you to read everything prior to class; however, I would like you to spend some time browsing Jonah Lehrer's old and new blogs -- the blog prior to 2014, and the one beginning March 2014 -- and make some observational notes about likenesses and differences. You do not have to read every single post on his blogs; I simply want you to read enough in order to be able to differentiate the blogs from one another.

Then, I would like you to select two (2) of the four (4) articles explaining different aspects of the Lehrer controversy and/or Lehrer's "journalistic misdeeds." Each of these four articles reflects a different public source. After reading your two articles, revisit your observational notes about Lehrer's blogs, and make note of any questions that are raised for you, as a reader or an observer of mediated discourse.

Come ready to share your notes with the class on Thursday.

Looking forward to it,
-Prof. Graban

Preparation for 9/2: Writing an Intertextual Conversation

Folks, this is the first formal writing you are doing for me this semester, so I need you to show me what you can do.  For this assignment, you'll be synthesizing together your two critical texts for Tuesday (Grant-Davie with either D'Angelo or Porter) in order to better understand their claims, their assumptions, their implications, and their usefulness for writing in the mediated public sphere.

I'm asking you to write an "intertextual conversation," which essentially means constructing a figurative (not literal) conversation between two authors, where you show the influences of one on the other, or where you show how one author's work is either implicitly or explicitly referencing ideas presented by the other. There are several ways to do this. You might make the case for how both authors could be drawing on the same or similar traditions in articulating their concepts. Or, you might make the case for how one author takes up, builds on, disrupts, completes, complicates, or moves the other author's concept forward. Or, you might do something else.

Your intertextual conversation should be brief (~2 single-spaced pages, word-processed or typed). In spite of its brevity, I'm looking for depth and breadth in your writing—that is, I'll be looking for you to demonstrate a good grasp of each author's overarching argument while also noting its nuances and intricacies. You should not simply summarize both texts, but you should communicate to a reader who hasn't necessarily read both texts. This means you should be prepared to explain key terms or concepts that are important to the conversation you are constructing, and cite relevant examples from each text, as well as to interpret the most important parts of their theories and how those theories are organized.

Please include the <MLA citation> for your readings and use <in-text (parenthetical) citations> throughout your IC where needed.

This is due in print/hard copy at the beginning of class on 9/2/14. Please remember to bring both critical texts to class in some material form. See you on Tuesday,

-Prof. Graban

Preparation for 8/28: course blog, your blog, blogging dates, your letter

Hello, everyone.

In preparation for Thursday's class, I have asked you to take care of these few -- but important -- tasks:

• if you have not already done so, complete the ENC 4404 questionnaire (distributed  in class);
• accept my invitation to our course blog (you'll get this in an e-mail, and I have given you some basic instructions on navigating the blog on the handout distributed in class);
• create your own blog (get as far as you can, referring to <this 3-minute tutorial> courtesy of Ms. Spiezo) and e-mail me the URL or address of your blog once it has been set up;
• send me an e-mail with your top 3 preferences for dates when you will <initiate discussion on the blog> (9/11, 9/16, 9/30, 10/9, 10/30, 11/6); 
• compose a "Goals" letter (and bring 2 printed copies to Thursday's class). In that letter, discuss your learning and writing goals for this semester, telling me what kind(s) of expertise you are hoping to gain or what kind(s) of breakthrough(s) you are hoping to achieve. Write something that you wouldn't mind having 2 or 3 of your peers read, but format it and shape it in such a way that it also effectively communicates to me. Give your letter purpose, content, maturity, and style.

I look forward to continuing our discussion on Thursday!

-Prof. Graban

Welcome to ENC 4404

Welcome to ENC 4404 for the Fall 2014 semester! This dedicated blog space hosts announcements, daily class preparation, gateways for assignments, and a forum for conversation as the class gets underway. This semester, each of you will be writing and maintaining your own blog where class discussion will ensue, and in the first week of class, your blog links will appear under "Member Blogs" in the navigation bar at right. Until then, feel free to browse the "Course Links" at right to preview (or review) any of our course documents.

-Professor Graban