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.