Portfolio Reflection

The Final Portfolio is a means of displaying the complexity and improvements of the work and time we have dedicated to learning and discourse throughout the entity of the Advanced Writing and Editing course. While looking through this Portfolio of my work, one can recollect on the discoveries I made on writing in this sphere. I learned to pay attention to stasis levels when writing and researching. I also made an effort to improve in every piece.

I chose to highlight my work in a specific way. I divided the tabs into sections to make it clear of the importance of each piece. I created a tab for the blogs I have written which has links directly to the blog posts. I did the same with the Short Assignments tab. I feel each of these, although important, were just stepping stones to creating my major works which include the Sci-Tech Blog, Public Argument, Analytic Essay and the Final Wikipedia Project.

It is imperative to take a look at the smaller pieces first in my opinion to be able to grasp the content and complexity in my major works. Each builds onto the other and shows the improvements in my writing as well as the understanding of the concepts of this course through my writing. 

Throughout every piece I develop and expand upon all of the readings from the class including "intertextuality", "rhetorical velocity", "editing out obscenity", as well as many others that will be made in reference to throughout all my projects. 

While forming this portfolio I developed even more understanding of the course by reflecting on my previous works. I saw first hand the progress I made with every piece and I saw the areas in which I can still use improvement. This is an excellent way to recollect on the bulk of material that was thrust upon us over the semester. With the improvements that I have made on my previously graded works, I can see where some misunderstandings became understandings and how to grow even more as a writer and editor. 

For instance, In my public argument, I recall back to the article "editing out obscenity" because my topic is about the responsibility of a writer and how an editor isn't the one who gets the credit or the blame, which is why editing is so important and sources should be checked with many others. Also, I was able to expand on my understanding of stasis levels. I learned that stasis levels are not something you write. It's something you portray through your writing. For example, I wouldn't say that my writing is found in a certain stage of stasis, but I would explain the stage that it was in based on its characteristics and facts. 

This e-portfolio is a fantastic way to look back on the semester and compare and contrast the quality of work and the discoveries that I have made on my own and how the class has learned as a whole. It shows off my abilities as a writer and editor and can provide clarity of the concepts of the course. 

Wikipedia Reflection

After being a partial writer to this Wikipedia project I have learned that it is difficult to change the style of your writing. It’s difficult to write in the format of Wikipedia. You have to remain unbiased and not add in any claims of your own. When stating claims, you must give credit to those who deserve it. Also, when working in a space like Wikipedia, you have to be prepared for changes and rejections because it is a website with open access to edit.

When writing an article for Wikipedia, there are many aspects to look at. When writing for Wikipedia, there are a lot of hidden steps that the average person may not consider. When writing in Wikipedia, it’s imperative to write through levels of lower states. The article needs to be fact based. You cannot show any bias toward the subject.

One aspect that I found difficult to do was write in the format of the average audience. Word choice is a big part of that, because although using a word like “discourse” or “sphere” seems average to a student in an advanced writing and editing class, it doesn’t appear that way to the average Wikipedia viewer. But it is also important not to “dumb down” the writing as well. It takes a lot of thought and revision to make a Wikipedia article what it is.

Writing a Wikipedia article is difficult enough, but when adding in the idea of a group project, on top of an entire class piece, think about the complications one can encounter. With writing different parts, the issues we would encounter are the clarity of the piece, having repeated subjects along with having one solid tone of the article. After completion of the actual material in the article, we divided into groups to bring the entire article together. I think that as a whole class, we did a great job meeting the purpose of the article and getting it ready for production.

When doing revisions of the article, I focused a lot on the article “Editing out Obscenity.” It helped guide me in the right direction of how a article should look and when to make changes when necessary. I also had the responsibility of checking the spelling of the article, therefore I used WWC to check for commonly misspelled words and I had to check multiple sources to make sure that what we were using was accurate.

Overall, the assignment went well and it taught me to write in a different format and sphere. I expanded my style of writing and working with others and learned to write in the way that the average reader would understand, without making myself or the class sound uneducated.

Response to SA #6

Analytic Reflection

Short Assignment 6

It was different editing in the aspect of Wikipedia. I know it is important to stay objective, but when editing for Wikipedia, I feel a weight on my shoulders and the pressure is on. I feel like writing one word the wrong way, can make something completely biased or considered inaccurate.

                For the shorter part of the assignment, I chose the article The Dragon Murder Case which is a description of a book. I chose this one from the portals page. I didn’t feel as threatened by this one because I only saw a few minor grammatical changes that I could make. Nothing major, so it wasn’t as if I were rewriting history. Nonetheless, just know that it was a part of Wikipedia does add a little pressure. So for this, because it was going directly to the Wikpedians, I made a few changes as possible.

                For the larger part of the assignment, I just dove right in. Since we were editing on a Word document, it caused the tension to subside for a little bit. I chose the article Gamma Kappa Phi. Digging into the editing for this article wasn’t too difficult. I came across mainly grammatical errors and spelling errors. However, the article, as even stated on the Wikipedia Page, came off as an advertisement. It felt informational for joining purposes. While editing, I referred back to the Editing out obscenity for references. In  the section Revision in thinking from the webpage, it reminded me to look at the sources being used to see if the information is credible. If I were to dig further into this article, I would definitely double check my references from other sources to ensure that what is being said in Gamma Kappa Phi is accurate. It appears to be fact based, but without the proper research, one can’t truly know. In Kolln’s article, The Writer’s voice, I looked over the dos and don’ts of grammatical editing. It helped me make changes throughout the article.

               

                This assignment helped me get a feel for a different kind of editing. It helped me look at an article and help make it stay clear and unbiased. I had to use reasoning to make sure I wasn’t changing anything that would make it inaccurate, as well as make sure that the article sounded legitimate. 

Meeting the Criteria

At first glance, when looking at the articles on Michelle Citron and Marshall McLuhan there are some noticeable differences that stand out. When looking at the appearance, it is easy to note that McLuhan’s bibliography is much more thorough than Citron’s. The structure of the McLuhan’s article has more parts to it.  Although both pieces talk about the person’s work, McLuhan has a much more detailed description under each of his major works. Citron is lacking the support to all of the claims and facts being made. In regards to references, McLuhan’s Wikipedia page has a lot more going on for it. It gives us credible sources to fact check which causes me to believe that the information being portrayed on screen is accurate, whereas in Citron’s article, I question whether or not everything being said is. She has some sources to back up the statements, but her article is still left vague. I think due to the article being on Wikipedia, both McLuhan and Citron’s pages follow a similar tone. They are informative and unbiased. Another key point that came to notice was the use of illustration. In McLuhan’s page there are two images used. First is a picture of McLuhan and the second is a street sign with his name on it whereas Citron’s page has no images.

Henry Sidgwick’s two biographies have very different feels to them. One is from Wikipedia and one is from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Each article gives a description of Sidgwick but the Wikipedia is very undeveloped. I get a brief sense of what makes Sidgwick important, but nothing too detailed. The structure of the Wikipedia page only gives us a short biography and the names of a few of his works but don’t go into any specifics.  There are no images used in the Stanford piece, and the only image on the Wikipedia page is a image of Sidgwick himself. I don’t think either biography really uses images to its fullest potential. The Wikipedia article, though in need of work, follows the idea of staying unbiased. It talks about Sidgwick as a person to look at whereas the Stanford article strays from unbiased a little, but for the most part gets back to being unbiased. For example, “Henry Sidgwick was one of the most influential ethical philosophers of the Victorian era”; this comes off as being biased. Who says he was one of the most influential ethical philosophers? Both biographies have a list of references, but the Stanford one has a more detailed and more extensive works cited. This allows us as viewers to find the piece as credible. If I were to use a biography as a source for a paper, I would use the Stanford one because it gives me the most factual looking information.

From Wikipedia, I have chosen the article titled Hey Jude, a song written by the Beatles. I think for the most part, it fits the FA criteria. It appears to be well written and thorough, well researched, neutral and stable. It has a lead that describes the song and gives detail about what the rest of the piece will be on. It gives us a solid structure of the song as well as the charts it hit its highs on. It is all backed up with sources which gives it solidity and an accurate description. It stays on topic and gives us an image of the record and the Beatles. They follow the concept of “No Original Research” because they have taken notes and numbers from other people and have created a piece combining other people’s research. For image use, they follow the criteria by citing the image they use back to the original source and give a description. Verifiability is in play here because we are able to check the sources being used to represent the song in order to make sure that they are credible. The article does a pretty decent job at meeting the criteria that is a Wikipedia article. It could still use some work, but it does stand pretty solid at current time. 

Generally, we Over-Simplify

We live in a society where oversimplification has taken a toll. Everyone is always looking for the easy way out. There is no challenge left and our strive is being affected. We see oversimplification in all aspects of life. We live and breathe it because it is in our nature to create it. I do it, you do it. It just happens.

“In personal relationships…we learn to ‘read between the lines’” (Lazere, 247) which exemplifies another form of simplification. We tend to in life cut corners which allows for less conversations leaves room for more assumption. The example give by Lazere in context with this statement is the idea that we see a person, we ask to sit down, we have an insinuated openness for conversation. We look at the ring finger on the left hand and factor if someone’s single or married and we begin our conversation based on symbols and body language and presumptions rather than starting a conversation with a clean slate.

Hand in hand with oversimplification comes overgeneralization. It’s just another means of jumping the gun and not going in depth enough to get a strong perception of something. We don’t do the digging into the facts that could help to make us more knowledgeable. We tend to come up with a conclusion about a group of people based on what one person does and every similar person to that individual will be forever established in that generalization. “We over generalize when we draw a conclusion about all the members of a class or things or persons or cars or computers or podiatrists on the basis of a very limited sample.” (Corbett and Eberly, 124)

 “We speak of an ironic sense of life, referring to a mind-set that appreciates the ironies that pervade every kind of experience; that mind-set is essential to critical thinking, reading, and writing.” (Lazere, 248)  Irony ties into this whole spectrum of overgeneralization and oversimplification in that we have been raised and taught is in us and we follow it because we are in that “mind set”.

Overall, after reviewing the two articles Oversimplification and Citizen Critic, I have come to the justification that our society runs on the idea of just getting by and not exerting the time or care for breaking things down and learning more. We love to simplify at any cost and without this changing, we will continue to do it and it will continue to progress. 

An Editor's Complex

BACKGROUND

A piece of writing can tell you anything. But what happens if we move the sentence structure around or add punctuation? The entire piece can develop a completely new meaning with the slightest change. To all you new writers and editors out there, this is for you.

ABSTRACT

. In the world of writing, editing isn’t limited to one way. It can depend on what the message is that a person is trying to get across to the audience. This is why an editor needs to be especially careful when adding to or changing a piece of work. One wrong step and the entire piece can be distraught. The type of genre a person is writing in can also affect the way an editor looks at a piece. Now I’m sure by now you are thinking that everything I’ve told you is common sense, but the reiteration is to express the importance and impact that editing can have on your directed audience. And by now I’m sure by now you’re wondering what the point is. The point is that editing is an important aspect of any piece of writing. If something is edited incorrectly, it could distract the audience from the understanding they should be arriving at.

INTRODUCTION

So when should we use editing? Is it something that occurs when we want to move something around just because we feel like it, or is there a real purpose? How do we use editing to the fullest potential and how does it affect the authors as well as the readers?

WHAT IS EDITING?

Editing is also a means of taking out unnecessary information and taking out information that may cause a piece to be seen as not credible. A strong example of this at work is the website Wikipedia.  The entire purpose of this website is to allow editing from the entire public. Each topic may have a little or a lot of information, but the question is how do we know what people are editing can be seen as credible.  In Hood’s Editing out Obscenity, they make a point to mention that when editing in your own information, you need to make sure that you have a credible source to back it up. Because Wikipedia is so easily accessed, it is important to have these websites be as accurate as possible because many people are seeing the information in this website because when you type into Google, Wikipedia is usually the first source to pop up. So it’s the job of editors like you to improve the websites and the sources.

Editing can be done in a positive or negative way. Editing can cause a misrepresentation of an original idea or intention, but it can also improve the accuracy and credibility of a piece of work. Another important point I think we should play close attention to is that editing isn’t merely limited to a piece of writing. It can expand to a theory, a piece of art, or even an image or video.

FORMS OF EDITING

Now think back to all of the elections. The first thing that comes to my mind is all of the political campaigns that are mainstreaming television as a presidential election approaches. Often, what you will see are many misguided commercials that are highlighting a particular candidate in a certain light and that candidate will shed a negative light on the opposing candidate by possibly editing out certain things he have said and twisting it into a certain light. Also, with the abilities that technology gives us, we can make so many changes and alterations to art, videos and images. Programs like photo shop can allow the editing of anything. For instance, if I wanted to change the face on the Mona Lisa or put a human head on a dog’s body, I can instantly edit it with a few clicks. Now it isn’t strictly limited to only art. A recent edit that has become popular on the internet would be the remake of the Taylor Swift trouble music video. Some editing genius thought to put a goat screaming into the music video and is causing laughs around the country. So as you can see, editing is easy to do and very accessible.

BECOMING AN EDITOR/ WHEN DO WE EDIT?

Editing is one of the most important aspects of writing. But the hard part knows when the right and wrong to be editing something is. It’s the concept of picking your battles. This relates to political correctness as well. Political correctness (PC) is “a term which denotes language, ideas, policies, and behavior seen as seeking to minimize social and institutional offense in occupational, gender, racial, cultural, sexual orientation, certain other religions, beliefs or ideologies, disability, and age-related contexts, and, as purported by the term, doing so to an excessive extent.” So it is extremely important that when editing in any aspect, to be sure not to create any political bias and cause a piece to be distraught.

Every genre can be looked at differently, but it all comes down to one simple word; Responsibility. As an editor, you become responsible of the work you are editing. Your name may not appear on the work, but if the editing is done poorly it reflects poorly not just on you, but on the original author. This is why it is imperative to choose your battles wisely, and not make changes without careful consideration before going red pen crazy. “When you take on a book, you have to answer to yourself why you’re doing it and be willing to live with the consequences.” (Wolf, 230)

­­HOW DO WE EDIT?

            When editing, often what can happen is that if it is a piece of your own you will make changes you maybe didn’t see at first, but when it’s somebody else’s work, what you look for is for what makes sense. It is “Language that affects the writer’s voice and thus, the reader’s interpretation: tone, the writer’s stance, or attitude toward the topic; diction, the choice of words, and point of view, the perspective from which the writer views the topic.” (Kolln, 107) If we take this into consideration, this is how proper editing can be obtained.

What is the most important to make things credible? There are rules to follow for different genres. If something is persuasive, make sure the editing keeps the piece on the original view. As an editor you cannot be bias. You need to look for grammatical errors and wordy sentences, not add in your opinion. Staying objective is important for any editor. This all goes back to political correctness. For a quick example, Wikipedia follows its own rules in the editing sphere. At any given time, because of Wikipedia’s open editing policies, thousands of peoples are reading and editing a single topic. Because of this, it is important that all “editors” remain unbiased. Because of this open editing, and editors work will never be done on this website. “Because they are publically accessible, Wikipedia entries require reading that takes the process, their means of production, into consideration. Reading that does not misreads a finished version for a text still in progress. A finished version of a Wikipedia entry exists only in theory, however; since entries are rarely locked or tagged “read only” a reader can take on the role of an editor at any time, thereby updating, fussing with, or otherwise adulterating and entry that have remained stable for a while.” (Hood, Explanation in Process)

CONCLUSION

            As an editor, you have many responsibilities. You become responsible for the comprehension and readability of a piece and you make it ready for publication. Without you, pieces would be a jumble of grammatical errors and lengthy sentences. So as an editor, take your role serious because it affects every person who reads something. If you follow all of these steps, you can’t go wrong in the editing field.

APPENDICES 

Hood,Carra. “Editing Out Obscenity.” Wikipedia and Writing Pedagogy. Richard Stockton College of New Jersey, 2007.

Kolln, Martha. “The Writer’s Voice.” In Rhetorical Grammar: Grammatical Choices Rhetorical Effects,Fifth Edition. New York: Pearson,2007. 107-123. 

Wolf, Wendy M. “Editing Nonfiction: TheQuestion of ‘Political Correctness.’” Editors on Editing: WhatWriters Need to Know About What Editors Do, Third Edition. Ed. Gerald Gross. New York: Grove, 1993. 229-242. 

A Wikipedia Wonderland

Have you ever had a question about something, and typed it into Google? One of the top websites that appears in your search bar about your topic should be Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a "multilingual, web-biased, free-content encyclopedia project operated by the Wikimedia Foundations and based on an openly editable modem." The name Wikipedia comes from "wiki," a term that means "a technology for creating collaborative websites" combined with the term encyclopedia. Wikipedia doesn't always have all of the information you may be looking for, but have no fear. Wikipedia is a completely user friendly site that allows for any individual to access it, and edit an article to a better quality. The down side is that not every topic out there will have enough information about it and need to be expanded. Also, some topics may only have one or two sentences about them and need a lot of help. This is done through use of web/wiki lingo called stubs. What a stub is, is an article that needs improvement. There are thousands of stubs in a variety of genres. If you click on one sub category of a stub, it will take you to a plethora of specific topics under a particular genre in order of importance. For example, if you click on the sub-category 2010's songs, you will stumble across pieces in alphabetical order. Under this genre you will find pieces that need improvement such as Merry Go Round,  a song written by new artist Kacey Musgraves. Another topic in need of improvement in this category is the song On Top of the World, a song by hipster group Imagine Dragons.

Now, if you think that stubs are pretty cool, then you will be impressed by the articles in need of expansion. These are topics that will be marked either, expand section, empty section or incomplete. These topics go beyond that of a stub. These are organized into sub-categories which are organized by month and year of updates or addition of the topic. Then within these sub-categories, you will find topics organized in date order. For example, if you click on the sub-category February 2013, you will come across topics such as 1934 Detroit Lions Season or 1951 Philosophy.

Now to put this concept to the test, I have chosen twelve words that I feel represent the Advanced Writing and Editing course and have described what they fall under.

1. public discourse (redirected to public sphere)
2. stasis (does not exist)
3. sci-tech (redirected to The Science Academy of South Texas)
4. public argument (does not exist)
5. exigence ( redirected to Exigent Circumstance in United States Law)
6. constraints (does not exist in terms of our class)
7. audience (needs citations)
8. genre (needs citations)
9. white paper (needs more)
10. discourse (developed; needs to be cleaned up)
11. intertextuality (needs citations)
12. blog (fully developed)

As you can see, all of these terms relate in some way to the concepts of stubs and articles in need of expansion. Only one, being blog, is a fully developed site that didn't need improvement or expansion.


Now lets put the credibility of the citings of these topics to the test.

Did you know... "that Maling Kutang was filmed in under a week and included a gorilla costume and 'magic' underwear and panties?"  Well neither did I. By checking Wikipedia, i clicked the link and learned that in fact this Indonesian Comedy film made in 2009 was a movie about chasing a magic bra after it had been stolen. I did not however find evidence to prove that the film was made in under a week, nor did the links underneath help me to discover this prood. This leads me to see this as a not so credible source to explain the fact being stated, even though Wikipedia does prove the second part about the gorilla suit and underwear. This piece could definitely use more information to make it more credible. Also, under sources, for it to be considered reliable it must entail the actual piece of work, creator of work, or publisher of work to establish proof. It uses reviews on the film to create the information to talk about the mixed reviews and the quality of film. It doesn't really go into much detail of these mixed reviews which also creates uncertainty, making another argument why this Wikipedia topic should not be accounted as completely accurate. This is why we should be skeptical of what we see and believe from Wikipedia. Because although some facts may be accurate and credible, not everything is.

Time is of the Essence

In Killingsworth's "Appeal to Time" he makes reference to the idea of how time is represented through modern and classical rhetoric. In regards to classical rhetoric time is represented through types of speech, being forensic, epideictic and deliberative speech. In Modern rhetoric examples are given through types of documents to represent the past present and future, being reports (past), instructions (present), and proposals (future.)

He also puts an emphasis on the importance of timeliness and urgency and represents these through the concepts of “kairos” and “exigence.” “Kairos” is finding the right argument for the right moment, whereas “exigence” is when topics emerge as urgent consideration at a particular historical time. He represents in his article the Martin Luther King Speech as an example of exigence. During the time of this speech it was relevant to speak of this topic because the inequality of race was at a high. A key point that I found important was the idea of urgency being related to relevance. Therefore the relevance of a particular argument can be determined by the urgency of its meaning.

Time is a huge issue in the concepts of what is going on. The term modern popped up all over this article;  the idea of modern being understood as something that is occurring right now. Everything in time is in the present and moving toward a better future. In my opinion, every aspect of life involves time and the strive to become better or to create something better. There will always be a “modern” in the life of everyone, and in terms of rhetoric we will always reflect of the past to see how it affected the present, but the overall goal is to use this to move on to the future and continue expanding the rhetorical theory over time.

Teaching Levels of Policy Conflict.

The op-ed article I chose was “The top 10 reasons students cannot cite or rely on Wikipedia.” I believe this is biased because it is stating the reasons you should not use it as a sole source and doesn't give any evidence as to why it would be completely factual. It does provide examples of people who falsely put information into Wikipedia and who the editors are, but there is no absolute way to prove all information is factual. Therefore I would ultimately call this a simulation argument because it pretty much is one sided as to why we should not use Wikipedia for citing and as a credible source. I feel that in Kaufer’s description of weighing the sides, we can pick out the fact that this article is one-sided in that it gives no supporting evidence to why Wikipedia could be used as a credible source for research. It is setting the scales heavier for the reasons why they cannot be credible sources. If we looked at It as a visual, we would see a complete imbalance. 

I believe that there is some misdirection in the article on Wikipedia, and falls in to the ethical violation of style criteria. I think that the article misleads the audience to disregard Wikipedia completely as a source, and if this is so, then what reason does it have to exist and why hasn't it been shut down. I didn’t see really any examples of “The Usage Rule”, where the writer is deliberately trying to confuse the readers. Perhaps, if we look at the section at the bottom of the article, we can see the statement “Wikipedia can actually be a constructive tool in the classroom if understood and used correctly.” This sentence completely contradicts the entire article where the word “cannot” is predominately used. I think it is misleading to add this sentence into the article when the whole article is about why not to use Wikipedia as a source. It’s a contradictory sentence.

In terms of “ideographs” and “value” terms, there were a few words in the article that stood out. The words that had a sense of value in my eyes were reliable, unreliable, and trust. I think that the audience needs to establish a sense of reliability on what the author is speaking of. I also think that by using the word unreliable and reliable in the same paragraph can confuse the readers. It could challenge its sense of credibility. Trust is probably the strongest word in the article, and is used to represent the number one reason why we shouldn’t cite or rely on Wikipedia as a source. Wikipedia says, “We do not expect you to trust us.” This right that is building a relationship with the reader because we are believing this statement about Wikipedia because the author has told us that it is true. We are trusting the author with our opinion on Wikipedia. I think that it is channeling discourse in that it creating a conversation with the author and reader. The conversation is building trust by giving credible information about a not so credible website, so by the end you are trusting the author, and then the word trust pops onto the screen a solidifies that feeling. Thus, Trust would be the most important word in the article in my opinion.

Wikipedia: Fact of Fiction?

While working on Assignment Three, I chose to edit the piece on Wikipedia, and the ten reasons why students cannot cite or rely on Wikipedia. Throughout my piece, I first read it multiple times to grasp an understanding on the concept of what I was reading. Once I developed that understanding, I proceeded to make grammatical changes as well as rewording some sentences to make them either stronger or more comprehensible. I learned these in Style and When Words Collide.

I feel that this source itself was an example of lower states, in that it is more fact based and it exists as itself. I think that the people going on Wikipedia and entering false information, as stated in the  article, is an example of higher stases. I feel the article is geared toward the audience of Wikipedia users, as well as college students, and students of any age.

I think that this article proved to be helpful because it gave me a hands on experience in the line of editing, which all in all will prove to make me a better writer. With practice makes perfect.

Suburban Sprawl's Impact on New Ruralism

Everyone wants to live their lives in different ways. Some people long for that Big City life, whereas others hope to avoid the mass amounts of people and prefer the close knit, small town life. Personally I am fond of large cities, but I can see why others may feel differently. Living in a community where everything is close-by, neighbors are friendly, and green does sound intriguing. And the people who enjoy this style of living would want to fend of these city folk from transforming and cluttering their living space. This can be done through the concept of New Ruralism.

New Ruralism is “a response for those rural areas on the urban edge that are most at risk for the encroachment of suburbanization, environmental degradation and industrialization.” (Stratton) The idea of New Ruralism is the combination of both “smart growth and sustainable agriculture.” (Stratton) With these trends, New Ruralism hopes to re-connect with the land.

The basic principles that create the foundation for what New Ruralism should contain are characterized in Stratton’s article. First off, “the rural area needs an identity rooted in the agricultural, ecological, geographical, or cultural attributes to be preserved.” Next, “the primary use of the land dedicated to farming should be small to medium scale agriculture integrated with areas for wildlife and habitat management.” Another important principle of New Ruralism is “maintaining a public environment that is accessible to residents and visitors alike form all segments of society.” Last but not least comes the most important concept of New Ruralism. They must be “high-density mixed land use in the areas where development occurs.” These principles are the main components in having a defined and successful example of New Ruralism.  By creating more self sufficient neighborhoods it will help to improve the spread of the sprawl. By becoming a community that doesn’t rely on use of coal and other resources it will also provide a better way of living, meaning less cars, more walking and biking. (350.org)

Now with all of this information comes the question, why? Why do we care about New Ruralism, and what is it trying to do? The reason New Ruralism is becoming such an anticipated type of community is because of the effects of urban or suburban sprawl. What suburban or sprawl is, is the “unplanned, uncontrolled spreading of urban development into areas adjoining the edge of a city.” So with the development of New Ruralist communities, the hope is to limit or remove the problem of sprawl. “There is a vaccine against sprawl, a way to ward off the encroachment of those who see the land as an accessory and not a commodity, and it is New Ruralism.”  Sprawl contaminates the beauty and nature of a community. But, if we keep communities clean and well maintained and have more nature and trees, etc., then we will see New Ruralism in action and results will be seen. With more nature based communities without the effects of sprawl, Oxygen will be clean, will reduce noise pollution and much more. (Crop life)

The ways in which New Ruralism has attempted to take a stand against this sprawl is through examples where some concepts of these communities are being portrayed.  A prime representative of these attempts is in the city of Serenbe, Georgia. In this community there are “three distinctive hamlets, with restaurants and retail shops, an organized farm, a wastewater treatment plant and enough walkways that strolling has become more efficient than walking.” (Stratton) They wanted to “flow with the natural terrain of the land.

Through these examples, New Ruralists have been able to see what concepts are working and what still needs improvements. There are ways for communities to become New Ruralist communities. There a few important steps that must be made for the transition. First, the community must be “organizing the community around a vision to support the conservation of existing green space, promote land values and encourage sustainable development.” Next would be for the community to “develop a master land use plan, delineating areas of development from those left for conservation.” Then “zoning ordinances should be updated to allow for mixed land uses and to create legitimate ways to advance walk ability over driving.” Also, a development “cannot have more than four large-scale retail establishments” for it to be considered New Ruralist. The key to creating a New Ruralist development is by “establishing an apparatus to conserve the land in perpetuity.” For any community trying to transform into a New Ruralist one, these are the things that must be done for it to be considered New Ruralism.

The entire need for New Ruralist communities derives from the fact that there is suburban sprawl. Whether or not these communities will put a noticeable end to the sprawl isn’t guaranteed, but hopes are high in having a decrease. This process will take time, but in the end it will be beneficial for the environment and will create an easier lifestyle away from the sprawl. 

SOURCES:

climate solutions
Crop life
New Ruralism

Stratton, Emily M. "New Ruralism." University of Georgia Land Use Clinic (2009): n. pag. University of Georgia School of Law and School of Ecology, Fall 2009. Web. 6 Feb. 2013.

Analytic Reflection

Viral Videos Play on Emotions

Jonah Lehrer’s article “Why Do Viral Videos Go Viral?” tells the audience about the popularity of videos on the internet, and why they are so popular, along with the reasons why people watch them. It explains the social psychology of why this happens through the viral video of “Charlie Bit my Finger…Again.” This video shows a little boy sitting with his little brother Charlie, and Charlie bites his brothers finger. At first the boy screams, but then starts an uncontrollable laughter. Now we as the viewers are witnessing this and we also experience a cycle of emotions. We start out watching with excitement, and then that excitement turns into concern when the child appears hurt, and once he begins to laugh it becomes contagious and you can’t help but laugh along as well.

Now with all of this being said, the question on the mind is, why do we watch things like this and how does it become so popular? Well, according to Lehrer’s article, a man named Jonah Berger says a video goes viral because “it has to do with the visceral emotions it arouses in viewers.” He explains that the “popularity of such videos is rooted in the way they excite the body, inducing a spectrum of physiological changes.” He also explains that when people are in certain states of arousal, they are more likely to share information. Examples of studies are explained and with that the same result kept coming. “He discovered instead that the most popular stories were those that triggered the most arousing emotions, such as awe and anger. We don’t want to share facts—we want to share feelings.”

Now the next question in our minds is, why do people want to do this? Well, its been found “that people often share strong emotions as a means of fostering connection and solidarity.” And that the whole point of this article is that, “because people have a deep need to share their emotions, there will always be an insatiable demand for funny baby videos, angry political rants and Justin Bieber songs. Such content can often seem frivolous and superficial. But the content isn’t the point. The viral clip is merely a means to an end, an efficient way to tell someone else that, for a few moments at least, we’d like to feel the same thing.”

Now comes the next question, why is this article so important? Well, it serves as an example of something that may serve as a misrepresentation of discourse. As factual as everything in this article appears, I am not fully convinced that we are getting all of the information we need. Through examples of stases, I would classify this piece as a section of higher stases. It connects with the reader and the outside world by using a familiar example to get its point across. Although the article gives examples of some studies that were given on the popularity of articles and videos based on emotion, I think that it could be completely heresay. For example, it depends on who your audience is. If you are someone who enjoys funny baby videos and comical videos, then this article would be factual and completely relevant to you, but if you don’t then that would disprove the entire concept of the article. I think this article is more of the idea of human interest than it is news related, because this wouldn’t be something that would be put on the news. It’s an article of interest for those who enjoy youtube videos and for those who watch so many of the “viral” videos.

I think that this article could be legitimate or illegitimate, because of the fact that a lot of it, although backed up by some evidence, is persuasive, especially to those who are more emotional and can relate more personally to this. I also believe that age and gender plays a large role. Someone younger may just find humor in a video like “Charlie bit my finger” whereas a mother would instantly react with concern to a child in pain and may not find it funny that this was posted on the internet.

In the end, I believe this article is overall good, but we cannot take every piece of information in it as accurate because a lot of other outside factors haven’t been explained and I think it has been particularly focused on one specific audience.


http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/07/why-do-viral-videos-go-viral/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OBlgSz8sSM

The Downward Spiral of Literacy

The overall message one should gather from reading “The Future of reading” is that due to technological advances, people are becoming lazy and are not using their brains to their fullest potential. So why does this matter? It matters because there is nothing like opening up a book and putting the brain to work. E-texts are turning our reading literacy into mush and causing readers everywhere to become lazy.

The rhetorical situation is represented in this article through exigence, audience, and constraints. The exigence of this piece is showing the downward spiral of literacy. It brings forth the flaws and laziness of reading for digital print. The excessive increase in technology is causing this downfall. The intended audience for this article is really for anyone who reads. It relates to the tech savvy readers with their IPads and e-readers, as well as those people who enjoy sitting down to read the newspaper or cracking open a copy of their favorite book. It plays on the pros and cons of each type of reader and highlights the author’s opinion on reading in today’s technological society.  Another type of audience that can be focused on with this article is those whom are borderline with the idea of transitioning from print to digital. It’s a warning to say, “Hey your literacy level will decrease.” The constraints of this piece I feel are that it draws mainly to the print readers. E-readers are more likely to overlook this article and the message that it is giving because they are content with their style of reading. These people would rather walk around with a Nook or IPad, then a hard copy of a book. They are probably satisfied with the simplicity technology brings to the life of reading.

This text functions as an intertext by many means. If we take the piece at face value, we are getting the author’s perspective on reading in the world today. He uses real life examples to relate to the readers of the passage in order to create a sense of credibility for his statements. By mentioning the rapid decrease in print books and the increase of internet and digital sources, he plays on the emotions of the old fashioned and boosts the trends of the present.

The author mentions Stanislas Dehaene, who explains the neural anatomy of reading. The intertext of indirect quotes and the mentioning of a person with established credibility are being portrayed in this section by explaining his ideas on the differences in reading with the ventral route and the dorsal stream. With the ventral route, the reading is very familiar and routine. The reading comes across as simple and easy and it causes the readers to not have to really think. This differs from the dorsal stream because the dorsal stream causes you to use and exercise your brain to understand. By using this brain path a person is more conscious of what they are reading on the page. This would occur in printed texts rather than in digital forms. With the dorsal stream, the activity equals literacy. While reading this passage, I experienced the use of the ventral route. By looking at a screen I was subjected to larger, clearly written words. My eyes didn’t need to adjust and I didn’t have to look too in depth.

The article also references an explicit social drama. This drama is surfaced when discussing the ideas of the different types of reading. It creates a sense of drama for those hooked on digital reading, because they may rethink their methods. He mentions an example of someone reading their work on a screen where it looks polished and then once it’s printed mistakes and flaws become more visible. This shows yet another flaw in digital print. 

Overall from this article, one will recognize the changes in reading and the changes in literacy that come of the advancement of technology through the uses of rhetoric and intertext.