User:JVbird/NMAC 5108 Journal

March 5, 2019: Writing and Teaching with Wikipedia

I've long followed my school's "orders" to steer students away from Wikipedia, even though I love going to it for information, whether it's to find out how many Grand Slam tournaments Rafael Nadal has won (17!) or to quickly find out more about some new author I am reading. I know most English classes tell students that they should never use Wikipedia because it is "unreliable" but the more I read in this week's tour of the site, the more I recognize the power and potential of this site. I can see, for example, how encouraging students to investigate the reliability of information on Wikipedia could help them understand that no category of source type (academic journal, .edu site, or online article) is necessarily automatically "bad" or "good" and that they need to be more engaged with and questioning of whatever they are reading and integrating into their writing anyway.

I also want to investigate further the potential for using Wikipedia as a teaching tool in my writing classes. We've worked really hard to turn our first term writing class away from the traditional 5 paragraph formal essay, focusing on helping students see that writing is situational and that tone, voice, level of formality, and the information we include in what we write are all determined by audience and purpose. We now include a blog post assignment to build our students' awareness of audience, purpose, and main point, for example. It also serves as a bridge to the more formal and academic writing they also complete in the course, a bridge between what they are more familiar and comfortable with doing and what is more foreign and challenging for them to do. When I read Instructor Basics: How to Use Wikipedia as a Teaching Tool, I was really excited at the potential for building an undergraduate writing class using the resources that Wikipedia offers. It seems to me that it might help build student confidence in themselves as writers if they see themselves actively engaged with a large group of writers/editors who see the importance of sharing knowledge, being honest, and collaborating together. It has the potential to show them that writing matters, that it is powerful, and that they have something to contribute. I also think that if an undergraduate course includes some of the writing and exercises that the Instructor Basics information refers to, that students will, through contributing to the articles on Wikipedia's site, strengthen their ability to write objectively, cite information consistently, and at the same time help them learn some skills with digital platforms that they may need (no, will need) to survive and thrive in their professional careers.

JVbird

I can't help but agree with your sentiments here — especially those about writing instruction. I have long thought now that while the essay form is still valuable, we are doing our students a disservice by not expanding our notions of writing to more adequately address the literacy demands of the digital age. Welcome to the course. I look forward to working with you this semester. —Grlucas (talk) 12:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

@grlucas What do you think about using the Wikipedia Teaching Tool in a first term writing course, though? I keep wondering if it might make a good module but I also worry that first term writing students may face too high a learning curve, if they're trying to learn how to write and respond to others on Wikipedia while at the same time learning the basics of writing and research. JVbird (talk) 20:48, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with your assertions regarding students becoming actively engaged in an environment which promotes inclusion and collaboration. I had to overcome some trepidation in writing my first journal post but now realize how in keeping a journal, developing my writing skills on a digital platform will strengthen my ability to write objectively. The format of this course dictates active participation and provides students with the tools necessary to collaborate and share information in an honest, unbiased manner. Dillbug (talk) 20:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

March 10: My Best Writing Experience

Chapter 1, Chapter Activity 1

Audience: Classmates and professor, possibly talent scouts searching for the next best screenplay Abstract: This article defines how this is the writer's best experience with writing an adapted screenplay for the upcoming movie, The Thousand Autumns of Jakub de Zoet. It also examines the writer's upcoming retirement and move to Iceland. Keywords: Adapted screenplay, David Mitchell novel, The Thousand Autumns of Jakub de Zoet, and Iceland Tweet: Local teacher sets record for screenplay contract, retires to Iceland

So, my best writing experience is one that hasn't happened yet. About 2 years ago, I was telling a friend of mine how David Mitchell's novel, The Thousand Autumns of Jakub de Zoet is a masterpiece that she should read. She was working on a play about F. Scott and Zelda Fitzgerald at the time, and she needed a distraction, a break from it all, so I told her she had to check out the Mitchell novel. Just like me, she had lived in Japan for a while a couple of decades ago, and we both bonded over costume dramas a long time ago, so it seemed like a perfect fit for her. The Thousand Autumns of Jakub de Zoet is set in late 18th and early 19th Century Japan, and it's an amazing novel with themes as divergent as midwifery, feudal Japanese cultural, naval warfare, mercury as a cure for various venereal diseases, and reincarnation.

I gave her one warning, though. Do not, I said, steal my ideas for a screenplay. See, I have read this book at least 10 times and I can envision it being a 5 part BBC program starring Irish actor Domhnall Gleeson. I told her all about how I'd start in the middle with this one very small but I think significant scene that I think can set up the whole movie perfectly, then move back to the miraculous first episode of the novel. I've created a vision board for this screenplay. But the reason it's my best piece of writing is that it's still perfect, in my head. I haven't put it down on the page yet, because I know if or when I do, it won't be what I want it to be. Heck, I've never written a screenplay, and truth be told, I'm not sure this is some blockbuster movie story line.

Were I to write it and were it to somehow be bought up by some production company with money to burn, and suddenly it's the best thing around and I win a BAFTA on top of everything else, I would, though, take those millions I would suddenly have in my bank account, invest them quite wisely, and then announce my (somewhat) early retirement. I would buy a house out in the countryside in Iceland. I would live in a small farmhouse and raise sheep, something from a landscape painting from one of my favorite artists, Louisa Matthíasdóttir. I would learn Icelandic.

Course, right now, since I haven't written this screenplay, if I had to say what my best writing experience is was, in truth, it would be a paper I wrote on Reynolds Price an American poet and novelist I met once, briefly, at a book signing. I love his novels The Source of Light and The Promise of Rest best of all (they're the last two books in a trilogy beginning with The Surface of Earth) and so I submitted a proposal to the Popular Culture conference a few years ago and when they accepted, I reread those novels, let my ideas percolate for a couple of months and then suddenly realized that the presentation (a 12 hour drive away up in Ohio) was in a week. I had all my research already done, and I knew in my mind what I wanted to argue, but like a lot of folks, I procrastinated. Really procrastinated. But once I sat down to write, it really came fairly easy, and it was actually a nicely organized, strongly argued piece of criticism. I got really good feedback on it at the conference and some suggestions for publication.

In case you're wondering, no, I haven't followed through. Not yet. Unlike a best selling, adapted screenplay, though, I know there's no potential for making lots of retirement money off some academic publication, but that's not my reason for not following through. The mood just hasn't hit me yet and I am otherwise occupied with job, family, dogs, chickens and bees.

But maybe I'll still somehow retire to Iceland. Maybe. JVbird

JVbird (talk) 23:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@JVbird: Love it! You are a great writer and after reading this entry I am dying to read the opener to your screenplay. Do it and do share! And Iceland, huh, sounds cold though when I went to Climate of Iceland wiki link, it is not as bad as I had envisioned. Sure would be nice to see the Northern Lights! (Dmcgonagill (talk) 00:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC))

@Dmcgonagill: One night in Iceland, I was walking back to the hotel after a late dinner. I looked up to see the Northern lights. They seemed to be reaching down to grab me, so beautiful, so other worldly. It wasn't cold when I was there, but I don't think I would dare visit in January! You can get such good deals on plane tickets to Iceland. I highly recommend. JVbird (talk) 13:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC) talk

March 9, 2019: Writer's Block

I was planning on creating an infographic for this journal post (Chapter 2, Activity 3), but I seem to be having trouble manipulating the spreadsheet cells on Infogram.com. I can't quite seem to get my demographic information input correctly. While I was taking a break from the mess I was working on with the infographic (there's something about a template that does not love me), I remembered a statement from Chapter 1 of our Writing & Editing for Digital Media textbook that I wanted to respond to. Carroll writes that "writer's block does not exist. It is a fiction, a fabrication, a myth, a crutch, and an excuse" (21). I do get Carroll's point here, which is that we can write, if we see it as "a job, so we have to go to work" (21) but I've worked with too many freshmen students, mostly adult learners, whose struggle with writer's block seems real, to agree with Carroll's conclusion. Many adult learners lack a lot of self-confidence when it comes to writing, especially formal academic writing with sources. They feel they have nothing to say, or they just don't know where to begin. They stare at the computer screen and get frustrated and just quit. I wonder if admitting that writer's block is real, acknowledging that writers suffer from it, and letting writers that there are ways of getting past it (whether it's getting away from the computer and going old school and writing in a notebook, or watching 30 minutes of bad TV, or trying a brainstorming activity) might be closer to the truth and more helpful.

I often struggle with writing, and sometimes I have to spend days working through what I want to write, in my head. Sleeping on it, letting my subconscious brain work through problems, sometimes works, and I will find myself waking up at 3 in the morning having one of those A-ha! moments, thankfully. Writer's block seems real to me, though. Now if I can just figure out how to get past Infographic Block! JVbird (talk) 23:07, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

March 13: Reviewing Wiki entry, Norris Church Mailer

I honestly didn't know anything at all about Norris Church Mailer (and I know very little about Normal Mailer himself) before reading the Norris Church Mailer entry on Wikipedia. The entry did give me a brief overview of who she was and it seems to be a generally well written entry. It is objective, reports facts without taking a position or making recommendations or arguing her value as a writer. It includes citations for most of the information, although the information on when she married N. Mailer is not cited for some reason. I see most of my classmates have already noted that the sources cited, though, may not be the strongest.

It has a clear entry header and organizes information using subheaders with clear titles that let me know what each section is about (First Novel and Memoir; Personal Life...). The order of these bits of information (headers) wasn't quite clear to me, though. I thought it odd that the information on Norris Church Mailer's "personal life" before marrying Normal Mailer came after the section on Normal Mailer. There's also missing information in some sections. For example, the section titled First Novel and Memoir begins with a mention of "After her divorce.." without any clear reference to what divorce that refers to, or necessarily why that is relevant, that it happened after her divorce. The section titled Life with Norman Mailer seems incomplete. I left that section wanting to know more, things like whether Mailer influenced her writing, whether she wrote during her marriage to him, since after all the bio begins by identifying her as a novelist. Speaking of, we get little information about the novels themselves. What were they about? How were they critically received? That sort of information might be valuable to anyone wanting to know more about NCM beyond the few basic biographical facts given.

The page might be stronger if it included a picture and a brief thumbnail biography on the right hand side of the screen as well. I did check a few of the links and they are working. The talk page indicates that it is a low priority subject for a few wiki projects including WikiProject Women's History.

JVbird ~~~~ JVbird (talk)

I found similar issues when reading about Mrs. Mailer's entries on Wikipedia. In addition to organization, I thought any entries should be backed with credible sources and not information posted cited from a website or a newspaper article. After reading your post, I may have misunderstood the assignment as I made recommendations based on editing Wikipedia requirements and offered suggestions for improving the introduction. I focused solely on enhancing the introduction for this journal post. I completed writing my second journal post, but for some reason, am again, having difficulty with the editor allowing me to paste the information. I will overcome! Dillbug (talk) 00:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)Dillbug

@JVbird and Dillbug: I agree with you both. Both of you pointed me to something I had not mentioned. Source credibility was one and order of sections was the other. They did seem out of order, but I assumed the focus was on her relationship to Norman Mailer so that is why not much attention was paid to the man before. Thanks for the insight y'all! (Dmcgonagill (talk) 00:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC))

@@JVbird: I also found those similar issues. I believe that if more brainstorming and planning were put into the layout structure of this entry it would fill the gaps of missing content and produce a better sequential order. However, the entry information has left me curious about her and her memoir.Ssimsjones (talk) 04:52, 17 March 2019 (UTC) ::::{{ reply to| JVbird }} Josef, you are spot on that NCM's entry would benefit from a photograph and more insight to her memoir (and the literary, artistic circles they ran amongst). I've just searched and only Windchill Summer is available at my county library. Dekalb doesn't have any copies of her memoir. The limited entry seems to suggest that NCM's talents took a backseat to her husband's accomplishments. Perhaps more contributions would offer a balanced perspective to Church Mailer's life before and after her involvement with NM. [[User:MangoMasala]] ([[User talk: Mangomasala|talk]]) ??NEW JOURNAL ENTRY. WHY IS IT SHOWING UP THIS WAY? == March 15: New Editor-in-Chief == Activity 3 in Chapter 4 of Writing & Editing for Digital Media asks us to evaluate a website we visit regularly and make specific recommendations for improving the presentation of content on the site. To be honest, most websites these days are fairly well done. Gone are the days when websites were hard to navigate and poorly designed and visually appealing. Heck, in one of our classes in the fall term, we used Wordpress to create a website. The templates available in the free version make it pretty hard for even a novice like me to not design a good site, with some work and revision of the early draft version. I like most of the sites I go to, from Huffpost to Washington Post, to Queerty, to Foodgawker, Amateur Gourmet and dozens of other cooking blogs. I did imagine taking over [https://www.vanityfair.com/ Vanity Fairy] though, because while I still like the site, it has changed over the last few months. The magazine itself got a total makeover a few months ago when a new editor took over. I know they're going for a hip, young, fresh feel both on their website and the print version of the magazine, and maybe my response is to the fact that I was used to the prior version of the site. I do like the organization of articles, though, into the 3 categories (HIVE, HWD, and VANITIES). If you hover over the category, you can easily identify the focus of the categories and the content to be found in each section. It is kind of odd, though, that the site gives equal relevance to news items as they do with their material on TV and movies, but that has everything to do with their push to gain a younger audience and to no doubt compete with other sites. Advertisement has increased on the website itself, with huge ads showing up over the site Logo and it feels more crowded, with feature articles competing with the home page logo, Vanity Fair. Visual rhythm seems to be a bit frenetic, or at least a bit fast, again perhaps owing to the editor's focus on wanting to give the appearance of being hip and young. I wouldn't recommend a total revamp, just perhaps a trimming down of the site. It doesn't have to be so cramped and crowded. I will say that the site is strong in consistency in the various categories, both in color and font or typography (Carroll 109). I do think that since the site consists mostly of articles by various writers, it's challenging to have a consistent voice, but I think that the consistency in voice might be something to work on to strengthen the site. I think because the new editors are working to hit so many different groups of viewers (sorry, interactors), the tone or voice is a bit muddled. There's no doubt that the site has a more liberal bent than some other sites, though, something I would keep working on to control the structure, focus, and look of the site. [[User:JVbird|JVbird]] ([[User talk:JVbird|talk]]) 19:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC) JVbird [[User talk:JVbird|talk]] <nowiki>@waebo: JVbird you are absolutely right most website have been using a standard template that is easily to create. This new method of creating website allows everyone to start their own business or area online , but there is a down fall to this. When a task is hard at first the people performing this hard task are value must higher than when the task is no longer harder the person is not value as much. For example, a web designer before was a great job but then someone create templates that anyone can used and as a result web designer are very limited now. -- ~~~~ Waebo(talk) 17 march 2019

Getting Copyright Permission

I feel like I'm working at a detective Agency right now. No luck so far getting anyone to return my emails or calls about getting copyright permission for Andrew Gordon's article, The Modern Dream-Vision: Freud’s Interpretations of Dreams and Mailer’s An American Dream. This article was published in 1977 by the journal, Literature and Psychology.

So far, this is what I've done:

1. Googled and found his CV online and the University of Florida In Memoriam page.

2. Emailed University of Florida, Department Chair Dr. Dobrin

3. left a message with the English department secretary.

4. Tried going to the publishers of the journal itself, at Rhode Island College. Emailed the English Department Chair, Dr. Scott.

5. I also tried Gordon’s home number, retrieved from his CV, but the mailbox is marked full.

I’m still trying to locate Gordon’s son and hope to hear from UF soon. Tried going to the publishers of the journal itself, at Rhode Island College. Emailed the English Department Chair, Dr. Scott. I can't for the life of me find an obituary, though; If I could find an obit, I could possible locate his son and get permission that way. Anyone good at locating obituaries? JVbird (talk) 19:55, 16 March 2019 (UTC) JVbird

@JVbird: Is he dead? Have you tried his linkedin: Andrew Gordon LinkedIn?(Dmcgonagill (talk) 00:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC))

@Dmcgonagill: Hi Dana, he is dead, yup. I know how to pick em! But a lot of the essays are probably by now dead authors, so I think a lot of us are in the same boat. I'll keep trying. Thanks for the tip. I never go to linkedin.com for some reason, so I didn't think of it at all. JVbird (talk) 13:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)talk

@JVbird:I am in the same boat. Emails are not being accepted and no number is listed in the contacts sections. Don’t give up. :) Namir Riptide (talk) 15:54, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

@Namir Riptide: Sorry you are also having trouble getting permission. We will just have to keep trying, I guess! JVbird (talk) 17:17, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

March 25, 2019: Chapter 5 raises concerns

There's no doubt that Carroll is right in Chapter 5 of Writing & Editing for Digital Media that "attention spans have diminished and that people interacting with digital media aren't, in fact, reading as that activity has been traditionally understood" and it's clear that when we write we have to think differently today than ever before, but not just in digital space. Those "monsters of impatience" are also students in our classrooms. I've seen a push, for example, in the classes I create for my school that are used in multiple sections of a course, to keep paragraphs very short, to take text out, to use images and infographics more. My concern is that if Carroll is right about the interactor's "immediate need for specific information" can the two co-exist in more traditional documents even? If students don't have much of an attention span, and everything is pared down to just a few sentences or blurbs or bullet points, is that going to hurt their reading comprehension and critical thinking skills?

The chapter also seems to suggest a shift in thought process for the reader/interactor. On page 129, Carroll says that '"blog readers" are seeking out information to support their views' and I'm not sure that's any different than what we see in print media. People with a certain political bent or viewpoint look for validation of their ideas. Politicians don't listen to each other or see any value in anything other than "facts" that support their current positions.

In other words, I see the "fundamental alignment" that Carroll is writing about. It just worries me a bit. JVbird (talk) 19:41, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jvbird: Heard on the concern. Business education teaches this type of writing as the most professional way to communicate. For expression, though, it is bare. As a mother and middle school teacher I too am concerned with the impatience and need to be constantly engaged. I think the push to include social emotional learning in public primary and secondary schools is a hopeful development. Communication skills off the screen are in dire need of repair for sure. Sort of related, I removed myself from Facebook after a friend I played volleyball with had posted some very important life changing events that were going on in her life, and when I sat beside her and said, "what's going on?"...she said "nothing". That's just wrong to me. Human to human interface with all the emotions is just as important as HCI. Glad you brought this concern up! (Dmcgonagill (talk) 19:14, 26 March 2019 (UTC))

March 26, 2019: Andrew Gordon Article and article/topic choices

So, I've created the first draft of the Gordon Article and posted it to my sandbox. I need to go in and double check it, set up the format correctly, and the PDF of the article that I used has some very fuzzy sections and a line cut off at the top of the last page that I'm going to need to work on by finding the original publication, which is not proving easy. I do have a question about the article, though. When we are ready for it to be posted to the actual Project Mailer site, are we posting it or sending it to Dr. Lucas for him to post it?

As for the topic choices for our own articles, I'm stumped at this point. I've gone to the PM to-do list and I am not sure what I am seeing or what we are supposed to choose from, so if anyone has any suggestions, please let me know. I'd be glad to do something as simple as digitizing letters, but if we are to write our own article on An American Dream, I did note while I was reading and transcribing Andrew Gordon's article, The Modern Dream-Vision: Freud's Interpretation of Dreams and Mailer's An American Dream (Literature and Psychology) that Gordon focuses a great deal on masculinity in AAD ("in fact it unmanned Rojack"), the book's homo-erotic overtones, and the implications of homophobia that underlie these issues. The trouble is, I've never read An American Dream. So if we're going to write an original article on it, I definitely need to hop on that now and get going on an article like this. What are you all doing? JVbird (talk) 20:06, 26 March 2019 (UTC) talk

@JVbird: Great job on getting your draft ready! When your draft is ready, let Dr. Lucas know and he will move it. However, I am confused (I seem to stay that way in this class). I have not read anything on us writing an article. Where did you read we were supposed to write our own articles? Like you, if we are supposed to be writing an article for Project Mailer, I need to get to work as well.Dillbug (talk) 22:28, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@Dillbug: I am there with you on the confusion. I've been inundating the professor with questions and hope I'm not being a pest about it. I am not usually so needy, I swear! As for writing an article, sorry for the confusion. I meant the Major Project. I've been talking with Dr. Lucas and I think my contribution is going to be working with the letters he has, although exactly doing what to them is still up in the air. The notes on the project do say the topic is up to us, so I kinda panicked thinking that I needed to write an original research article, but turns out not. JVbird (talk) 10:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@JVbird and Dillbug: No articles for your project, unless you want to do one. All we're doing is working on AAD Expanded. I wish there was something I could do to clear up the ostensible confusion. I really did try to put everything on the syllabus. What am I missing? —Grlucas (talk) 21:15, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@JVbird: You know, if you are interested, you should contribute to Wikipedia's entry on An American Dream. There's always something that needs to be done, and you don't have to know the novel — that's the great thing about this kind of research and writing. —Grlucas (talk) 21:36, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

The Modern Dream Vision: Freud's The Interpretation of Dreams and Mailer's An American Dream

Finished transcribing the Andrew Gordon article but still no permission received.

@JVbird: You really should remove this essay from Wikipedia for obvious reasons. Just link to it on PM. —Grlucas (talk) 14:15, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

@Grlucas: Done! Thanks for the reminder. JVbird (talk) 19:27, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Finalizing My Contribution to Project Mailer

I've decided to work on the letters for my major project and contribution to the Mailer Project. Right now, looks like the professor has 76 letters that need to be digitized. He says that this is too much for one person (WHEW!) Looks like Dillbug has also expressed an interest in working on the letters, so we can divvy this up. I've looked at how letters of literary figures like Reynolds Price and Flannery O'Connor have been addressed. Looks like most critics like to write long analytical books that include both a scanned version of the letters and a transcribed version of them, as well as commentary and analysis. I don't think that is the goal, yet, with these letters, as that seems to be a very long term and ambitious project that might take years and a larger understanding of their significance to an understanding of the life and works of Norman Mailer.

I am not sure which letters I will specifically tackle so if @Dillbug: wants to choose, we can work that out here and have it finalized asap and get started! It is, after all, almost the end of week 4, and that means only a little bit of time left to get it done. Yikes. Back when I was in graduate school for English literature, we didn't study letters much, just the primary texts themselves, but I've since then learned a great deal from reading letters, including those by W.H. Auden (which might be a project I'd like to take on later...). JVbird (talk) 17:30, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Chapter 6 Exercise 5c

If I were a member of a "journalistic organization" and I learned that a local teacher had been accused of sexual misconduct and that he had left other organizations under similar circumstances, I would certainly face an ethical dilemma. On the one hand, if I report on this story and publish his name, and he actually had not committed any crimes and the accusations were untrue, I could ruin his life and career. Think back to just a few years ago when names were published in the newspaper when sting operations entrapped gay men and did this. On the other hand, I also think about the sexual abuse allegations of certain priests and how they have consistently been swept under the rug. Priests have been moved from one church to another and have repeated their crimes, without any punishment and without any concern for the lives of their victims. If I contact the coach and he suggests he would kill himself, this would give me pause, naturally. I would have to investigate this situation further. Were charges ever pressed in the past? Have charges been made in this particular case? If I report the "facts" that allegations have been made, and I do not name the teacher, that won't solve the problem because people in an area know what is going on and what if rumors circulate anyway? While the teacher is vulnerable in this situation, so are the students. I would have to follow Brian Carroll's advice to consider all the stakeholders, identify the options I could take (not report at all, report with no names, report with his name) and make the best decision possible.

In the end, I think that the most vulnerable stakeholder here are the students. Yes, if I publish information on this teacher that turns out to be false, I risk harm to him and his family, and I also risk harm to my own organization and my own credibility. Before I publish anything, I'm going to talk to as many sources as possible, including the previous schools, the students who have accused him (if that information is available), the police if they have been involved. I think I might have to talk to him more as well. But I would feel obligated to publish the information, especially if I have found out that the schools have kept this information secret. In this case, as with the sex abuse scandal the Catholic Church currently faces, those in power who have allowed this abuse to go on for decades, out of concern with their public image, are equally monstrous to the sex offenders themselves and they should be prosecuted as well. If my goal is to find and report the truth, I cannot remain silent and be part of the problem itself by denying that these allegations exist. JVbird (talk) 15:45, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

April 3, 2019 Norman Mailer Letters and thoughts on plagiarism/close paraphrasing

I've begun posting some of Norman Mailer's letters that were written during the AAD period. They're interesting to say the least and might actually motivate me to want to read some of his stuff. Not sure why I never read his novels back in grad school. I don't think he was ever on an assignment or a reading list, though, now that I think about it. Wonder why? May have more to do with Auburn University back in the 1980s and how they really weren't teaching writers who were either living or at least not dead less than 100 years. That might be an exaggeration but...

Anyway, one thing the Wiki tutorial raised this week is about plagiarism, and I know we have to cite everything. I've drilled it into my students' heads for years. If you use it, give it credit. Period. The thing I'm a little intrigued about is this. With other types of writing, a writer does often take positions, make arguments, so sources are used in support of those ideas and so to me the paraphrasing there is a lot easier than writing on Wikipedia. With Wikipedia, it seems to me that we are dealing with facts, not interpretation, so the sources are everything, and often the source is giving exact information, like dates and names and facts that are challenging to paraphrase. Anyone else having a little trouble with close paraphrasing as a result, or is it just me? JVbird (talk) 01:14, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

JVbird I have also found myself having a difficult time with paraphrasing without being guilty of close paraphrasing. One tip I have is to read an article about a particular area and then move on to something else. That way, when I go back to write in a section, I am using my words and thoughts about what I read earlier and focusing on writing the information in my own words. I don't know if this helps you but it seems to have helped me so far. However, I am still terrified that I am going to be found guilty of misinterpreting completely or close paraphrasing another authors words. Dillbug (talk) 00:47, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@JVbird and Dillbug: If researching via Wikipedia, articles are so succinct that I, too, am terribly afraid of plagiarism through close paraphrasing. I think having multiple sources does help, but delivering the information in a neutral manner proves to be difficult if the sources outside of Wiki offer strong view points/position on a topic. Mango Masala 13:08, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@Mango Masala: You made a good point. Researching articles that are neutral is difficult because the author's are making persuasive arguments. In such situations, I would provide resources that reflect contrasting points of view. Dillbug (talk) 16:37, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

@Dillbug: That's excellent advice about avoiding close paraphrasing, Sandy. My students are forever worrying about plagiarism and I tell them to just be honest, but this seems to be a different issue, this close paraphrasing, because of the factual nature of the information. It's just yet another challenge of writing on Wiki! But we will do it! JVbird (talk) 16:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

April 5, 2019, Influencers

I keep hearing the term influencer being used, as in social media celebrities who influence how people dress, act, think, and what they buy or don't buy, as well as what music they listen to or movies they watch. Influencer Marketing Hub seems to suggest that these influencers are able to do that because they have "authority and knowledge."

I guess many of these folks, like bloggers and vloggers and youtube personalities do have a certain amount of knowledge, but is it their knowledge or their celebrity status that allows them to have this influence? My son is always talking about the latest exploits of his favorite vlogger, and certainly when we were kids, we were influenced by tv personalities. These influencers, though, seem to have a lot of power at their fingertips, a larger audience that may be very easily influenced. It's just another interesting example of how the web has affected and changed our lives for sure and how digital writing can be hugely influential. I'm definitely going to have to sign my posts grumpy old man, if I keep griping about these changes! JVbird (talk) 16:38, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

April 9, self-reflection before peer reviewing, update on letters

I'm behind on posting the NM letters. My goal is to have all the ones I am working on posted by the end of the day. You will probably see some formatting issues, especially with spacing and with the notes, as it turns out, I'm a little lousy with the fine details on wikipedia formatting. That is my goal this week, though, to get that all cleaned up so my contributions are spot on, or as close as possible. First, I need to read Chapters 7 and 8 and do the wiki training for this week, but everything will be posted by today. Thanks to everyone who has suggested how to work on format, pointed me in the right direction, and talked me off a ledge! JVbird (talk) 11:22, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

April 9, Blogs I Read

Chapter 7 of Writing & Editing for Digital Media reminds us that readers reward bloggers who are transparent. I think you can add that readers also reward when bloggers are honest, helpful, personable, and willing to share the good and bad and the ugly. When Julia Child first went live on television back in the 60s, what made her so amazing is that she told the viewers that they can make mistakes, that if they drop the chicken on the floor, just pick it up, wipe it off, and go on, and her honesty was absolutely refreshing. If she were alive and young today, she would no doubt be a blogger. I love that Carroll calls blogging a "thoroughly postmodern" venture, and it is.

Here are some blogs that I like, in no particularly order:

• Go Fug Yourself
• Smitten Kitchen
• Daily Beast
• Savage Love

I like Go Fug Yourself because it's a fun take on all things unimportant in fashion, entertainment, and they have the most hilarious live feed at the Oscars. They love to dish on whose clothes are good and bad and horrific.

Smitten Kitchen is a great example of what can happen if a blogger does it right. She turned this blog into a multi book publishing deal and has no doubt made lots of money off her honesty, sense of humor, wit and willingness to share her life. Great recipes too.

Daily Beast is one I used to read, until Andrew Sullivan went all crazy Republican right wingish on everything. He does reward readers with in-depth and thought provoking prose and he keeps readers aware of relevant political and social issues. I don't care for his positions on most things any more, but I read him occasionally.

Savage Love is by Dan Savage. Great writer. Humorous, quite willing to be brutally honest and open about his love life, his challenges with raising a child, anything political.

What do you read?

@JVbird: I don't typically read blogs unless I am searching for information over the internet about a specific issue. Most of the blogs I read are articles written in the New York Times or Washington Post. However, after your comments on the blogs you read, I may have to change my mind and expand my horizons as yours seem very interesting. You are right about Julia Childs, she would be instantly a world famous Youtuber if she were alive today.Dillbug (talk) 21:32, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

{reply to| JVbird}} Great recommendations, Josef. I'm definitely enjoying Smitten Kitchen - very nicely done, and look forward to reading more from Dan Savage. He's been suggested by my dads-in-law, too. With limited time to browse the web, I find it difficult to weed through all the rubbish to find quality blogs, so I value enthusiastic suggestions.Mango Masala 18:56, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Aoril 9, 2019, Bit of Self-Reflection

Writing in Wikipedia has been challenging. I've found myself doubting my ability to learn how to post and edit in this particular writing community, but little by little I am getting better. One of my biggest challenges is that I've always been taught that contributing means adding "original" knowledge. A paper or a thesis is supposed to go beyond finding source information and putting it all together to write a very objective, informative piece where everything is cited. I've always been trained to add, to argue, to integrate and use sources as a minor part of writing, been told to limit source information to no more than 20 percent of the writing or else it's not original. Then I had a little bit of an a-ha moment. What we are doing is no different than what scribes did in the Middle Ages. We are compiling knowledge so others have access to it. It's not about being original. It's about, transcribing, but it's more than transcribing. The analogy doesn't quite work in the end, I guess, but it makes me feel better about my contributions.

Speaking of, I have contributed to the discussions. I have now posted 10 NM letters to Project Mailer, as well as contributing to the writing, citing, and editing of the Norris Church Mailer bio, both the original, longer one we worked on, and the shorter, 200 word post. I like seeing how each person contributes, how each contribution changes content sometimes, sometimes style, sometimes both, and how in the end we are able to create a, I hope, organic post that looks like one person has written it. I'm working still on formatting when I post. Just now, I finally figured out what I was doing wrong with the citations/notes in the letters we are posting. I must have looked at 10 other of the letters in edit mode and said to myself, self, this is exactly what they are doing, so what is wrong with my citations. Then it dawned on me, and I was able to make the correction and then swiftly get the other letters posted. I do think I'd still like to contribute more, so I'm going to look into that tomorrow and see what else is on the to-do list.

I'm still too long winded, but I think my last edit of the NCM bio shows that I am working on that, that I can trim and condense and make things more concise (unlike this sentence here). ok, More reflection tomorrow... JVbird (talk) 01:36, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Josef Informal Peer Review

@JVbird: You have been a tenacious contributor from the beginning to ameliorate your Wikipedian practice. You have also been kind and encouraging to your fellow contributors as they expressed frustrations in journaling. You left out above how you served as project lead for the class phone conference that resulted in increased participation and comfort of your fellow collaborators. You also left out that you offered, to at least myself, to take on some of the letters I had outstanding after you had figured it out as you did mention above. You are wordy, but your message is clear & the artifact trail left by your journal entries & NCM bio contributions does prove lots of growth. An area to improve for you, that I have noticed, is adding links & paying close detail to every space & added wiki code. For example, in the letters you posted, I opened up Dr. Lucas's in one tab and yours in the other and caught things like lacking the same number of indent :::::::::::::::::::: marks as his and non inclusion of < /b> after the letter address, as well as lacking links and lines of space after things like {{NMletter}} & {{Letterhead start|styles = margin: 2em 2em 2em 2em}}. I'm not sure the latter even matters, but I just paid really close attention to every little detail & matched them up. YOU'RE AWESOME! (Dmcgonagill (talk) 19:40, 12 April 2019 (UTC))

April 12, 2019, 2019, Peer Reviews, writing and reading them

I just posted my two peer reviews, one to Dmcgonagill https://projectmailer.net/pm/User_talk:Dmcgonagill and one to Mango Masala https://projectmailer.net/pm/User_talk:Mango_masala and they were challenging to write. I always tell my students to be honest and constructive but when your classmates are amazing writers who are contributing successfully, it's hard to find suggestions for improvement for sure. If there is a theme here, it's to be as productive as possible, to contribute multiple times during the week, and to use the User History information to look at your own contributions and what you can do to make them stronger and to be a better contributor going forward.

I also read Dillbug's critique and it was tremendously helpful. The professor isn't the only one who can tell I have struggled with and at times gotten really frustrated with code. I had a small breakthrough, I thought, with the NM letters I posted, but even then it would appear I still have work to do on the details, things like double checking to make sure everything that is in italics in the original letters is italicized, checking to make sure my links to Wikipedia information are correct, and double checking the information in the notes. That's my goal for this weekend, to get in there and get them where they need to be, without errors (fingers crossed). JVbird (talk) 12:50, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

@JVbird:All of y'all have been wonderful to read, if not frustrating at how well y'all put things. The feedback I have received has been helpful as well as just the comradery comments. Diligence and great time management of you and the others getting things done, let alone so well, has been both a boon and a bane for me, keeping up and emulation. It has been great seeing you progress with your coding. And if you continue with this program, i'm sure you will be a fine boon to your job, current and future. Namir Riptide (talk) 22:30, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

April 14, 2019, Contributing to other Wikipedia Articles

I went to the article about one of my favorite authors, Reynolds Price, and noticed a long list of his novels, with only one of the novels really getting any specific links. The article on that book, Kate Vaiden, had been flagged for not having any sources cited. It looks like the contributor simply summarized the novel in his own words and that's it. I thought I would contribute to that page, so I found a couple of articles that I cited, very briefly. I'd actually like to contribute to information on two other of Price's novels, The Source of Light and A Promise of Rest. They are the second and third books in a trilogy beginning with The Surface of Earth. I wrote a paper on those two novels a while back and think they could use some attention, as could his first novel, A Long and Happy Life. My question, though @Grlucas: --in a case where someone has summarized a novel, without any sources, and I want to redo the page, should I just delete that information entirely? JVbird (talk) 19:25, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

@JVbird: Be careful about just deleting a lot of text; you might call unwanted attention to yourself. I'd do it a bit at a time. It's pretty difficult to source a summary, too. That said: I wholeheartedly support your editing entries that you care about. Go for it! —Grlucas (talk) 20:33, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

April 16, 2019, Building an Organization's Website and leveraging Social Media

This is kind of timely, but a couple of weeks ago, I joined the Communications Committee at the Association for Writing Across the Curriculum. It's a recently formed professional organization. We were talking about how to build a better website for the organization and how to leverage social media. I offered to help anyone who wanted to rebuilt the very basic website the organization is currently using. Before I knew it, I was assigned to be in charge of the process, so right now I'm looking at templates that Wordpress has, as they're going to use that platform (right now the free version). While chapter 9 of Writing & Editing for Digital Media begins with the rather ominous statement that "Social media are re-writing society", I'm not sure that is the goal of this website. There is opportunity for tweeting during the annual conference, and certainly we could use a blog to do things like motivate faculty across disciplines to join the organization and share knowledge, perhaps getting one of the members to blog teaching tips, for example. What would be the most appealing look for a website of this type, do you all think, and how might I more effectively leverage the social media opportunities that are out there? JVbird (talk) 12:10, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

@JVbird: How 'bout that live blogging!!!~~(Dmcgonagill (talk) 19:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC))

@Dmcgonagill: Maybe, but I have a feeling that live posts about an academic conference might not be quite as exciting as say, live posting about the Superbowl! Or maybe it could be, with the right blogger! JVbird (talk) 20:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

@JVbird: Depends on your interactor! I don't think you need a separate website for sharing that info, but linking relative information in a blog form off a page of your schools already established website might be nice. Do you have a link from that website where faculty go to get answers to faculty questions? Or, send email blasts to the association with highlights of the new information as it comes. Or tweet in that same fashion. Instagram is fun too, you could create an association account & then members could follow you. You create my story's as events happen, which if they're following you they can access readily. ~~(Dmcgonagill (talk) 15:24, 17 April 2019 (UTC))

@JVbird: I like your idea of a blog. Perhaps shared through an email marketing campaign? I think Mail Chimp maybe free (some versions). Twitter seems to be very popular and easy to digest. I like the visual narrative of Instagram, too. Happy to hear you are involved with WAC! Mango Masala 02:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC) (talk)

@Mango Masala: How in the world do people do it, 144 characters? lol JVbird (talk) 16:28, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

@JVbird: Hope! https://www.theverge.com/2016/5/24/11755416/twitter-removes-140-characters-limit-photos-usernames~~(Dmcgonagill (talk) 17:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC))

April 20, 2019, Return of the Internet

Playing catch up after almost two days without internet and phone. Comcast got out here as soon as they could, but... Anyway, I posted a Cover Mock-up, a Review, a letter and an outline of An American Dream after I finally figured out how to convert the PDFs. I had to send them to my MAC and then work from there. UGH. Tomorrow, the Easter bunny is going to forget about the chocolate and bring me some editing tools and I'm hitting all the contributions I have made for some clean up work. JVbird (talk) 23:42, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

April 21, 2019, Copyright and Access to Information, mulling over Chapter 10

Chapter 10 of Writing & Editing for Digital Media is chock full of relevant information. We dealt with the issue of copyright and permission issues when we were completing our initial article on AAD. The chapter also raises important issues with something seemingly simple as using and posting a picture on Wikipedia, all relevant to the work we have been completing for this class. As I was reading the chapter, I couldn't help but to be reminded that some of our most iconic works of literature will soon be in the public domain. The Great Gatsby, read in millions of classrooms, with all the money that comes with that, will soon be in the public domain, for example, and the implications of that are, to me, tremendous.

I also couldn't help but to think of the Mueller Report as I read about The Freedom of Information Act, open records and access to information. Carroll's conclusion that "the need for accountability has never been greater" couldn't be more true than in a case where a sitting President does everything in his power to hide the truth and is aided and abetted by an Attorney General who attempted to "interpret" the information for the public to keep access of information to a minimum. I guess we will see how this plays out in the coming months. JVbird (talk) 13:16, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

April 23, 2019, Editing and creating sub pages

I'm going to follow Dana's lead and talk about sub pages. I had some trouble with the multi-page files we were creating for the PM gallery page, and after a lot of trial and error, lots of questions and emails to classmates, I think I'm getting there. Sherita really helped me a lot with that and I think teaming up with Dana to create one of the sub pages helped as well. I'm still not sure about the consistency in title font and size, but I'm going to keep working on editing and get it done. Hard to believe that we're in the last few days but if you look at the number of pages we have created, we have contributed a lot to PM and I hope it shows that we are all improving! JVbird (talk) 19:40, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

April 23, 2019, Spinbot

My school is in the middle of its yearly virtual general education conference and I was just in a session where the presenter told us about various "tools" students use to try to get around the challenges of paraphrasing a source, including one I've never heard of: Spinbot

Have you all heard of this site? It allows you to cut and paste sections from a source and then click, presto chango, the site "rewrites" it for you. This may explain why so many of my students turn in papers with really big issues with too-close paraphrasing. Perfect example, one time a student submitted a paper about 9/11 and it was clear that he had used a thesaurus or some program like Spinbot because the synonyms used just did not make sense, and in fact, his lead sentence began "When President Shrub first heard that the Twin Towers had been attacked, he was reading to a group of elementary school students." Yikes. JVbird (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

@JVbird: Oh, dear. That's quite a word replacement! I haven't heard of Spinbot, but am not surprised someone continues to make lots of money off lazy students. Mango Masala 01:35, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

April 24, 2019, Reflective Essay

The following is my reflection on my contributions to this course and to Project Mailer specifically.

Critiquing articles:

Critiquing the article on Norris Church Mailer was challenging but interesting. I learned a great deal about what goes into a Wikipedia article, from rules about the lead section to the importance of being unbiased, citing all information from reliable sources, and how to work with others to produce an entry that feels like one person wrote it. It was helpful to review classmates' comments in the Talk page and to figure out, as a group, what should be included and excluded, in order to make the post concise (200 words, wow!). It was clear that contributing as a group required me to recognize that the way I write something may not be the best or only way to convey information, so I learned about the value of compromise and working as a team here for sure. I also think that if I do continue to work in Wikipedia (contributing to articles on Reynolds Price and his novels including Kate Vaiden, for example), that this exercise will help me with writing clearly, concisely, completely and correctly, including using correct code, which I am obviously still working on.

Peer review:

I wrote two peer reviews, one for Sandy and one for Mariam. I respect both Sandy and Mariam tremendously and have learned from them and enjoy working with them so very much. Writing a peer review is challenging especially when everyone is, in Dr. Lucas's words, an expert. Sandy clearly is a self-defined overachiever and reviewing her work motivated me to try to contribute more to Project Mailer and to master code (still working on it). Reviewing Mariam's contributions helped remind me of the importance of using links and citing sources correctly and reinforced my assessment that Mariam is an amazing team member.

Feedback:

I received peer reviews from two classmates that confirmed I need to work on the fine details and reminded me that I need to continue to work on code. Sandy reminded me to work on being more concise and to focus on making sure the information I include is relevant, which is challenging because of our own unique and individual biases. What I think is relevant in the Norris Church Mailer bio might not be relevant to others.

I also asked lots of questions and received a lot of feedback from Dr. Lucas and from Jules Carry, especially on code and format. I will still have to admit sometimes I can't quite "see" the details I am missing and that often led to frustration, but it also motivated me and once they showed me how to make changes, slowly but surely I improved. I'm not there yet, don't misunderstand, but I'm working on it.

The last two weeks I've spent going back over the Mailer letters I posted and reviewing the article history for each one, seeing how classmates and Dr. Lucas and Jules Carry all contributed, making changes, editing, and correcting errors in format and code I made. That motivated me to do the same with the other letters, so I reviewed all the NM letters again, added links and corrected some errors, to try to build my wiki skills.

Wikipedia generally:

I'm honestly not yet ready to totally embrace Wikipedia. I did talk to my department chair about a research pipeline opportunity to study how my department might use the Wikipedia Educator resources, and that is in the works for later. If nothing else, I've learned not to dismiss Wikipedia as an unreliable source. It's clear that this is an amazing advancement in knowledge. Never before has there been such such a resource for knowledge that is not only available to everyone with access to the internet, and it is a perfect example of what democratic ideology is all about. It would be foolish not to leverage it in some way and to talk more honestly to students about what is can do and be. It's also, I think, a great opportunity to show anyone they can be a writer, that they can contribute, that they have a voice. It can also be a really amazing tool for helping students to build their research and citation skills, and to learn how to avoid close paraphrasing and plagiarism.

@JVbird: Please let me know if I can help with this. —Grlucas (talk) 18:25, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Personal reflection

I think I have been engaged on almost a daily basis in this course and contributed well. I have truly enjoyed writing the Journals. This assignment reminded me how much I want to create my own cooking blog and how important it is to read other people's work, respect what they have to say, and interact with them. I've enjoyed reading my classmates' reflections and learning from their unique perspectives and styles. I also enjoyed contributing to the Discussions. They were confusing and frustrating at first, as I was not sure whether we were to write our own individual posts or work on them together, but that was part of the learning process.

I also enjoyed the process of seeking permission to post the Andrew Gordon article I transcribed. It was frustrating to never get permission, but the exercise was valuable and I learned a bit about how criticism has changed in the past few decades. Gordon's article was refreshingly not source-heavy, like a lot of contemporary criticism. It was also an exercise in learning how to transcribe accurately, follow directions, and follow basic Wikipedia code. The same holds true for contributing to the Norris Church Mailer bio, as noted above.

Contributing to Project Mailer has also been valuable. I think the letters I transcribed were interesting and reminded me how much we can learn about writers and their process through reading their letters. I'm glad that Dr. Lucas and the Mailer Society created this project and that we were able to contribute to it. The coding itself and working on links and footnotes helped me to build my Wikipedia skills, but as you know, I made a lot of mistakes. After going back over all the letters, reviewing how classmates and Dr. Lucas posted and revised and corrected the letters they worked on, I do think I improved. The Code work started making much more sense in the last week.

The Gallery work for An American Dream Expanded has been fun, even when it was frustrating. I enjoyed seeing what critics had to say about An American Dream even though I am still not yet ready to delve into reading the novel. I will say that I wonder if we had read the novel whether the work on PM might have been easier. Who knows. But in the last week, I definitely contributed a lot to the gallery, letters and reviews. Again, I made a lot of mistakes, but I did not give up. I read the feedback, made changes, and things are looking much better. I especially learned from teaming up with Dana on one of the reviews, because I could see her process and how she created sub pages and titles, giving me help with how to format my own work.

On a final note, thanks to everyone, all my classmates. Meeting with you on Skype and Google Chat really helped and I appreciate all the advice and support. It made all the difference. Josef JVbird (talk) 14:16, 25 April 2019 (UTC)