Wikipedia

For class last week we watched the Jimmy Wales and Andrew Keen debate on the issue of Wikipedia and we also read an article about smart mobs. From what I can gather, Wikipedia is essentially a smart mob. A "practical implementation of collective intellegence", a group that "behaves intellegently or efficiently because of its exponentially increasing network links", an "indication of the evolving communication technologies that will empower the people". Ironically, all of these definitions of a smart mob came from Wikipedia.

The Jimmy Wales and Andrew Keen debate was for the most part discussing whether Wikipedia was a creditble source or not. What was pretty much concluded is that Wikipedia is a good source to go to for quick information, information that you do not need to do heavy research for to find. It is practical and efficient, and it empowers people to become a part of something, all of which are characteristics of a smart mob. It also shows how are technology is allowing any person to contribute to a unit of information, rather than just professionals. I use wikipedia to find basic information such as who someone is, to find the importance of a certain place, or to get more information on something I dont know that I hear or read about. I would like to use it for research papers since it is very accessible, however that would not go over too well.

The problems with wikipedia arrise when people question the importance of certain materials. The example of how someone might think Harry Potter is more important than Hamlet was discussed in the debate, since the Harry Potter entry is longer than the Hamlet entry. Also, people question whether professional reporters are being rewarded or not for their work since people are going to these quick search engines instead of professional sources.

In this day and age, technology allows the everyday person to access and input information on the internet. The fact that people might think Harry Potter is more imporant than Hamlet, or that the internet is more useful than professional's work, only shows how our priorities are changing through time.

Group Projects

Today in class we started talking about our group projects. We began class reading an article from a Penn State student on the different personality types who make up a group. There is the controller who is always in charge, the passive/aggressive who doesnt really do anything, the pseudo-productive who says they will do more than they do, the busy guy who is always busy, the mute, and the slacker.

I honesty could not decide which person I am in group settings. I think it depends on who the group is made of, and what the group is for. If it is something I am really passionate about, I would most definately take charge. On the flip side, when I couldnt care less about a group project, I think I would have a hard time being the controller. In general, I would say I am focused and very good with time management and practicality, which would make me a "tester" and a "focuser". I like to get work done in the best, most effecient way possible.

Last year I had an awful group project in my architecture class. We were in charge of creating a site model that we could insert our architectural models into. To begin, there were two different teachers facilitating this project. One teacher was fine with us doing this freehand and with cardboard, while the other teacher wanted us to use expensive material and the laser cutter. This created the first problem. The students of the first teacher did not want to spend the money or the time creating a model they didnt have to, while the students of the second teacher really needed to do it her way to get a good grade.

When we finally decided on the material/method, we decided to divy up the responsibilities. One girl became in charge of the whole thing. While she was good at first, she became very annoying as she complained all the time about how she was doing all the work. This is what the Penn State student would call the "matyr controller". She did volunteer for the position- mainly to get brownie points with her teacher, so I feel that is partly her problem.

After intense debates/arguments/frustration/headache, we finally completed the project. Some people did very little work while others did a lot.

I feel if everyone knows the "personalites" and roles of group members from the get go, this could possibly save a lot of headache.

What does this mean?

Today in Class we looked at an example of how one set of words meant different things to two groups of people. For the first group, this set of words was simply the authors names to assigned readings. For the other group, this was a poem in which they completely disected the religious meaning behind it without any previous knowledge of what it meant. This is the perfect example of how different instructions provide different results defined by what the reader knows. What may seem clear to one group means something completely different to another group, depending on the community or setting of the information.

In the class following my technical writing class, we talked about something which almost completely relates. This class is a visual comm class in which we were discussing the study of semiotics. For those who do not know, semiotics is the study of signs and codes. Within this study, we talked about denotative meaning and conotative meaning.

Denotative meaning= literal meaning, what is actually there.

Connotative meaning= implied, evoked meaning, what our culture teaches us.

One example we looked at was from an actual ad. As you can see, my teacher has a dirty mind, but the example gets the point across.
This means different things to different people depending on what thier cultural background is

When asked, children saw this as a twister game on bed, but to some adults, the idea they got from this image was kinky sex. I guess this shows how one image/idea can mean different things to different people depending on the context they are looking at it in, and thier background experiences.

This shows us why it is important to create a clear context in which our instructions should be writen, designated for a specific audience, as it can be interpreted different ways.

Terrible Instructions!

Today in class we discussed what makes good/bad instructions. One particular example on tape dubbing was awful! First of all.. What is tape dubbing? I wish I had known before I read those instructions. Too bad they didnt really say what it was until the last paragraph. If I had really wanted to know what this was and how to do it, I would have had to re-read the instructions to fully grasp what they were telling me. Another thing I noticed was when they said "Go find Katie". Who is Katie? If I was a new employee learning the skill of tape dubbing, I probably wouldnt know who Katie was either!

This example of tape dubbing possessed many of the same qualities I have previously encountered in awful instructions, so naturally it had me thinking about them and why they were so bad.

Once someone gave me instructions on how to get to their house. They said something along the lines of "go straight through the light, turn at the stop sign, go through the next three stop signs and then turn. Then go left and then go right". Never having been to this persons house before, I had no idea what he was talking about. I didnt know which ways to turn, or really when to turn even. He assumed I knew the basics, however he misjudged my knowledge on the area. I needed more specific directions.

Another time, there was simply a terrible picture on instructions of how to put a chair together. Being a visual person, I naturally looked at the picture which ended up being an awful idea. My chair ended up being backwards so that you could not sit on it. I guess this tells us that if we are going to have images in our instructions, they should actually be beneficial and serve a purpose.

Hopefully by learning through the bad instructions I have previously encountered, I will be able to create coherent instructions which actually help somone preform a task.

Rhetoric?

This week in technical writing we continued our discussion on rhetoric. More spicifically what makes up a rhetorical situation. It was summed up in three parts, an exigence, constraint, and audience. An exigence being the expectation of the speach or the reason to speak, constraint being what should not be said, and audience being who is listening. We looked at a speech Obama gave containing these three things, and I have to wonder how something that contains these three parts is still rhetorical? I understand that the three parts are necessary for a rhetorical situation, but where is the line drawn between something you want to speak about and persuade people of, and what you are required to speak about because the timing is right?
What if we had a president who was completely against all the things Obama said in his speech, regarding the mosque near Ground Zero, and how Islamic people should be treated (not that this would be a good thing)? Would he still be required to speak about this topic? Disregarding Obamas topic (being a completely unpolitical person), I thought you used rhetoric to persuade people of a topic that you want to talk about. I am left wondering if these rhetorical situation criteria might cause people to be hypocritical of their own beliefs in certain situations. Do people always have to talk about something because there is an expectaion at the time to talk about it? If it is your duty to address something you personally dont believe in, would this still be rhetoric?