Wikipedia Debate

Last week in class, we watched a video of a debate between the founder of wikipedia Jimmy Wales and a wikipedia opponent, who was writer Andrew Keen. I thought they both brought up valid points, but in the end I tended to side more with Jimmy Wales.
I do not think that the internet is bringing about the demise of the intellectual, as Andrew Keen believes. The reason I sided against him more is that it seemed most of his arguments had clear holes that Jimmy Wales had perfectly rational explanations for. One such argument was that wikipedia does not limit how long the articles are, and therefore people who read it can't tell which subject is more important. With print encyclopedias, the more important subjects are longer compared to less significant subjects. Keen said that without this discrimination, people will not be able to tell the difference and will not know what is significant. I don't think this is true, and Wales brought up a good point when he said that the only reason encyclopedia writers actually did this was because they had to use paper so there was limited space. I thought it was interesting when Wales said that wikipedia is the realization of all encyclopedia writers-- to have the ability to cover all subjects equally and factually. Of course there are mistakes on wikipedia, as there are in any encyclopedia, and it is necessary to read the information critically, but I think wikipedia is a great service. I use it all the time, and don't really know what I would do without it.

Working in Groups

After reading the article about the different types of people that are in groups, I can definitely say that I've encountered a couple of them. I think some of the categories may be a little extreme from what I have seen, but they definitely seem similar. There's definitely been the person who means well, but that really doesn't know what they are doing and the rest of the group has to end up rewriting that person's part. And of course, there always seems to be a slacker who doesn't do anything, but is still able to take some credit.
If I were to categorize myself, I'm not really sure that I would fit into one of the categories. I'm definitely not a slacker, but I don't think I'm the other extreme which is the dominant leader. I tend not to be an aggressive person by nature, so it isn't my first instinct to take the lead in a group right off the bat. However, if no one else seems to be doing anything and nothing is getting done, then I usually step up. It's kind of like when a teacher asks a question in class, and no one answers, I will raise my hand just break the awkward silence and keep the conversation going. I won't immediately assume the leadership role, but I'll jump in if necessary. I think it should be interesting to start a new group project, and so far it seems like it won't be too bad.

Blog 4: Instructions continued

After writing my introduction, I found that even though I think it's not good to have ones that are too long, I was still writing more than I thought I would. I believe most of the information is necessary, and sets the tone for the instructions that are to follow. After writing the actual instructions, I hope that they are as clear to others as they are to me, but I can only find that out by having other people read them. Because I wrote instructions for a recipe aimed at college students, I aimed to make them pretty simple and not too time-consuming. I thought the best format was to use bullets for the ingredients so that they are easy to see and read, and numbers designating which order the instructions should be followed. There is not a ton of steps, so I tried to make the breaks between each one logical. Hopefully they're clear enough that even the unexperienced cooks can make chicken noodle soup!

Blog 3: Instructions

I'm glad we're actually starting to do something that isn't so abstract to me. Learning about rhetoric was somewhat interesting, but I feel like learning how to write instructions in an appropriate and effective way is something that I can really use later in life. I didn't want to do instructions about anything technical, because to be honest I'm not all that great at that kind of thing, so I probably wouldn't write the best of instructions. Instead I decided to write instructions about food, aka a recipe. I got the idea to do homemade chicken noodle soup because its really not that hard to make, and to me it tastes a lot better when you make it yourself rather than out of the can. Also, with sickness hitting a lot of students around campus (including me), one of my favorite things to eat is soup. I think there may even be evidence that chicken noodle soup actually helps colds.
Anyway, we talked a lot about introductions in class. Introductions are definitely an important part of instructions, as they let the reader know what will follow. I think some of the introductions we read in class were a bit on the long side, even though the information they contained was necessary. As a reader, I know that sometimes when I just glance at something that has a dense amount of text, I get a little distracted and don't want to read the entire thing. Therefore, I think for an introduction to be effective it can't be discouraging, but just contain the necessities-- to put the reader in the correct frame of mind for the following instructions.

Blog 2: Rhetorical Situation

In the last class, the conversation was still focused on rhetoric, except the author of the reading had slightly different views of rhetoric than Aristotle. He stated that in order for something to be considered rhetoric, it had to be in response to a situation. This makes sense to me, since most of what I consider to be rhetoric is based off of something that has happened, like a politician giving a speech or a lawyer's words to a jury. The situation comes first, and then rhetoric follows. It is up to the author to decide however, if a particular situation requires a response, and to act in an appropriate way by responding to what the audience needs/wants to hear. If they do not address what they should, then they have missed their chance or handled the situation badly. To me, even though I'm neither a politician or a lawyer, I can still see this in my everyday life. If I get in a fight with one of my friends, it's common for me to only think of the right thing to say after the fight is already over. I continue to dwell on it, but the real point is that I missed my opportunity and didn't handle the rhetorical situation in a correct way. I know the author states that in order for it be considered rhetoric, there first has to be a situation, and in most instances I think that's correct. However, he brings up an example that a eulogy is only rhetoric if the person has died, and if eulogies are created without an audience for them, then they aren't considered rhetoric. I don't think this is necessarily true, and that it can't be so simple as to say that rhetoric only follows a situation. It's definitely true in some instances, but the rule cannot be considered absolute.
We also looked at a presidential speech made by Barack Obama at a Ramadan dinner at the White House. A word that was seen throughout the rhetoric article was exigence, which basically is a condition that needs to be addressed. All the situations that rhetoric follows are exigences, and like I said before, it's up to the author to determine what exactly the exigence(s) are. In his speech, he discussed Muslim Americans in response to hosting a Ramadan dinner. The dinner was an exigence, but there was also another one. Throughout the speech, there was a defensive tone and constant references back to the the founding fathers and the constitution, reminding the audience that freedom of religion and freedom period is what makes America what it is. This was in response to the controversy surrounding the construction of a mosque in ground zero, something many were against. By saying that ever since America's inception religious freedom has been a fact, he responded to those who were critical of the building. It wasn't he who made the decision, but the men who founded our country. He didn't necessarily have to respond to the controversy, but the situation presented itself and through his rhetoric, he addressed the exigences that were there.