The “bad idea” I chose was “The Traditional Research Paper is Best” by Alexandria Lockett. From my first read, I didn’t completely understand the argument proposed by the author. However, going back, it became more clear to me why the author decided to begin the argument by contrasting the “modern” way of writing research papers to the “traditional”. The new and improved research paper does not oblige the student to go through the hassle of commuting to the library, searching for adequate sources, finding and investigating and repeating these steps all over again. Instead, at our fingertips are millions of sources for about any topic you search for on the internet. Yet, that is exactly the problem. The author refers to this abundance of information as a “data deluge.” Is the negative connotation in this term implying something bigger? I believe so. Lockett transitions into a body paragraph saying the word “unfortunately” followed by an explanation of the modern research paper downfalls. One example of such: “Instructors may underestimate the nuances of popular databases and overestimate students’ frequent use of databases as competency. However, Internet research really is a lot of work.” Therefore, one big dilemma is that, rather than approaching the traditional methods of research paper writing, instructors demand a greater number of sources to students that must navigate the “data deluge” of the internet to write their paper. Additionally, students will likely be much more disposed toward plagiarism, since “most people cannot handle the chore of deciphering the data deluge.” As if that weren’t enough, media owning companies’ “data collection practices and [the[ design of these companies’ websites direct users’ attention, which affects their research skills.”

Lockett, however, does not conclude here. The essay continues by entering the “research 2.0” topic. Internet research for a research paper can be used in a more effective way. The instructors must make part of the change, which has a lot to do with attitude. For example, changing the narrow views of Wikipedia and Wikipedia’s use when searching for sources and perspective. Even online writing groups are possible, which are very encouraging to writers. Lockett now concludes: “[…] few educational institutions and disciplines are cultivating the technical, scientific, and artistic competencies necessary for editing, navigating, and managing the Internet’s infinite retrieval mechanisms. When students are taught how to recognize that they have the power to diversify Internet content with high-quality research, the research paper 2.0 could play a major role in balancing the dynamics of knowledge production between traditional
institutions and emerging media.” In other words, the way we approach the “modern” research paper will greatly influence the result and quality of the final paper.

I chose this piece because I’ve had to do research papers in the past, and I was curious to see the author’s point of view on this topic. I agreed 100% with the term “data deluge.” Sometimes, it feels like your drowning in information, but it’s as if your own paper will be one more in the millions of results, so how great can your writing really be. However, the approach suggested by the author, and the change of attitude by students and instructors as well, may very much improve future research papers.

[…] The pandemic closed down many things, but we had to continue with our lives. At the time quarantine began, I was in highschool, and had art class on my schedule. I drew the above picture to describe how I felt. I felt trapped inside my own apartment, yearning to go outside in the rain. I enjoy walking in the rain, so I drew the girl with her umbrella ready to go, but all she can do is stare out her window. Some people consider opening an umbrella inside as bad luck, but I wasn’t thinking of that. Instead, although everything else was drawn and traced in black contrasting with white, I drew a yellow umbrella. In this case, yellow symbolizes hope. Since yellow is also a color for happiness, I was hoping my happiness would remain with me, although my surroundings seemed to rain on what was supposed to be a great year.

One way I kept my joy was by giving. I tried to help others and worry less about the problems around me. This gave me strength.

Pictures of envelopes in which I wrote letters to neighbors, to help cope through the difficult times.

[..] On this multimodal documentation of my pandemic life, I decided to focus on the positive outcomes of the pandemic. It would be hard to include everything, and my pictures went from pictures to screenshots, but the focus is the same. This pandemic has taught me resilience and the importance of attitude. There are so many problems in the world, and when I watch the news, the virus is probably the least threatening thing right now. It appalls me to see how horribly people have acted towards each other in history, and how humans continue to demonstrate hateful traits. However, if I want to see a change, I know it must begin with myself. 2020 was a confusing year, but it allowed me to grow in endurance and patience. I’ve had opportunities that I might’ve never received otherwise. In the beginning, I did feel trapped and anxious for the future. Sometimes that feeling creeps inside of me again. Still, there’s been a before and after in me. I feel more ready than ever to tackle what the future should throw at me. If I was happy before, I’m happier now, because I’ve endured.

1. What were you told about Wikipedia in your early schooling? How has that changed after reading Purdy?

In my early schooling I was not allowed to use Wikipedia as a source. I was told it was not reliable nor true to use. Those that contribute to the Wikipedia articles do not need to be experts or professionals, and incorrect information can seep in. However, even the Encyclopedia Britannica, a trusted source, has errors, and Purdy concludes that Wikipedia is as trustworthy as Britannica in a variety of science articles. However, Wikipedia is constantly changing, and it would be a hassle to cite from it, for the person that visits the same article link may read a completely different version! From reading Purdy’s opening statements and paragraphs, I understand that college level writing should involve more advanced sources, rather than a general encyclopedia, which includes the use of Wikipedia. However, Wikipedia can be read and used in different ways.

1. What are some ways that Purdy explains Wikipedia can be a useful tool to you as a student and scholar? Describe at least two.

Wikipedia can help you see at a glance an outline for your research. The table of contents and headings can aid and provide ideas for your research paper. Additionally, Wikipedia has links citing the sources used for the information listed on their site. Therefore, you can look at such sources and evaluate for yourself if they are credible and how reliable they are for your research.

1. After reading about how Wikipedia works, would you consider it a community platform? For what reasons? Were you aware of the conversations taking place over every article edit?

I do consider Wikipedia as a community platform because it is available to the public for free, and those visiting the site can also contribute to it. I was not aware of the conversations regarding the edits. I used to think any random person could edit it and you would never know why or how. But now that I am aware, I read through some discussions and it was quite interesting. It helps me make my own judgement of how reliable the article is for my personal use, and it is interesting to see other people’s perspectives.

1. Carr argues that having such advanced technology in our pants pockets is affecting the way we learn and read. What does Carr mean when he says having access to infinite knowledge is making us stupid?

Carr makes a very good argument: the more we rely on artificial intelligence to make us smarter, the more we become mechanic, like artificial intelligence. The flood of information is at our fingertips, and the making of the web is purposefully designed to distract our attention as we navigate it. As scientists have seen, our brains continue to create paths and connections, and the use of the internet creates paths that favor skimming through words while comprehending less, rather than patiently reading and maybe re-reading articles.

1. Do you think there are problems with having immediate access? What are we losing by doing this? (For example, have you ever had to go to the library and find a physical book to conduct research?)

When we have immediate access to everything, we lose the experience, we lose the endurance gained when it is a struggle to find the information you need. We don’t develop the patience that comes from the tedious task of constant research. However, we gain time that is so precious, especially today. As society continues to change rapidly, technology allows us to be at the same pace. I wouldn’t be able to do as well in my college studies if I had to find an available textbook, pay for it, and research it versus having the electronic version with links.

1. Shirkey argues that by constantly having access to the internet, we are able to experiment with new areas of knowledge in a much easier/accessible way. What are the pros/cons of this?

Without the access to the internet it would be very difficult to explore so many different areas of interest. Sometimes I google random facts, and then read up more about those facts and within an hour I’ve read more than what could’ve taken me an hour to find without the internet. However, being complacent with having the knowledge so easily at our disposal can lead to us taking less time to exercise our brain by making an effort to retain the information. We may consume the information easier, but we aren’t fully digesting.

1. What do YOU think? Is the internet giving us new knowledge, or is it melting our brains in a way? Or both?

The internet both gives us knowledge but “melts our brain away” slowly. There’s no denying that the internet contains an extraordinary amount of information, yet the ease with which it hands it to us may very well exempt the brain from working. However, if we don’t exercise the muscle which is our brain, we will debilitate our ability to use it efficiently, and to a greater capacity.

1. Carr addressing how as time progresses, our reliance on technology becomes stronger and stronger. For example, the tragic incidents of the plane crashes mentioned in the article. Do you agree? What could have changed the outcome of these incidents/How can we fix this?

I agree that our reliance on technology becomes stronger as technology becomes more advanced. For example, have you ever had that moment where you go back home because you left your phone? It’s like we can’t go anywhere without our cellphones, which makes sense, since the cities and societies we live in are partly built around technological advancements. This is a convenience, sometimes. The plane crash incidents that occurred, however, were inconvenienced or even caused by technology. Such events may probably be fixed by reducing our dependence gradually. For example, providing more training non reliant on technology, but muscle memory instead, o fall back on when technology fails.

1. Do you think it’s a matter of improving technology or improving the skills of the workers? Why?

The human brain is designed so complexly that scientists do not fully comprehend what we are capable of, so improving the skills of workers will allow for better performance. Anyway, technology can be improved simultaneously.

1. Do you think this relates to the concern of technology taking jobs? What is your stance on this controversy?

This concern is definitely related to the concern of technology taking over our jobs, which is valid. Many people have been replaced for “better and more efficient” technology. That is why it is so important to learn skills that will help us in the future, as technology advances so rapidly.

Bonus: How reliant are YOU on technology? Think about your daily routine and how many times you interact with technology.

As of right now, I am very reliant on technology. My college classes and assignments are all online, which has been convenient now during the pandemic. Additionally, I interact with other people virtually, due to distance, commodity, and now this year quarantine. I use alarms and calendars on my phone,  I have language apps and dictionaries and books- all on my phone. I can live without my phone and use other alternatives, but it would be very difficult to achieve as many things as I can do now without the use of technology. Therefore, my daily routine is reliant on technology.

How does Litt describe the relationship between literature, writing, and technology?

Litt uses his own personal experience as a way to describe how interconnected technology is with writing. For example, when he didn’t have the same technology offered today, his immediate inclination was to go outside, or when inside, delve into writing for recreational and private purposes. Quite similarly, I began to write poetry when I was bored and felt like expressing myself in a more personal and private way. Then, I grew attached to poetry, as it became a pastime I did more often than not.

Litt discusses how many classical tales were driven by distance, or lack of connectivity, rendering these plotlines obsolete in the digital age. Has technology affected your perceptions of more classical literature? What do types of issues are the stories of today driven by?

I think technology has indeed changed my perceptions of classical literature in both good and bad ways. For example, although I read Shakespearean plays in school, the videos and other resources provided to me from technology at my hands, allowed me to understand the structure and poetry that Shakespeare utilized. In another sense, I read classical literature when I was in elementary school, and although my vocabulary was not at the level, I did enjoy those books. However, now I think I’d prefer to watch an adaptation as a pastime, although I recognize that these are never as good as the book.

How might you see technology disrupting/change the stories of today or the future? (Consider how might tropes might change as technology advances, or how it has already) 

The stories have already begun to change. I’ve read Emily Dickinson’s poems, and many of their themes are beautiful or on the other hand sorrowful, but I can’t always relate to her poems. Her surroundings were definitely more different than today. Poetry today still references themes that are common to us as humans: death, love, mourning- such themes, however, are developed in different manners. The author may have had more of an opportunity to travel and interact with more cultures, seeing as technology has advanced so much. Stories go from being “single-stories” to more open-minded works of art.

What is your opinion? How does reading on a screen or through these various interfaces affect you/your learning/reading comprehension?

I feel more detached to the story, in a sense. Reading an e-book in my leisure time feels unnatural. I’d much rather grab a book, and flip through it’s pages. When I read on a screen, my mind has learned to associate it as a task for school or something else. I read every day, in spanish or english. However, I don’t feel like my comprehension increases or decreases due to the fact that I’m reading from a screen. I do find myself skimming a lot more, and I think that the words I read per minute have decreased, although this is just my personal perception.

I didn’t think these articles would move me, but they did. The writers were so sincere in their conversations that it feels natural to read their work all the way through with intrigue for their next points. Starting with Whitehead, it doesn’t matter that he wrote his article 19+ years ago, I can relate to it today. In aspects even greater than your hometown or city, people come and go, and many other things change. However, that’s okay. Accepting that there will be change and accepting that those once treasured- or not treasured enough- things can disappear in an instant, is relieving a burden off your future self. Why? The person we were yesterday knew less than the one we are today. So it isn’t wise to torment ourselves about the past, the what could’ve been or the what should’ve been. The tragic crisis, the Twin Towers’ 9/11, came unexpectedly and brought grief and sudden change. Whitehead’s attitude and proposal to the community is that it is okay to accept that there will be a new skyline. He says, “[…] let’s be patient and not judge too quickly. We were new here, too, once.” There is more meaning to this: the city we once knew, the life we once lived, was new when we arrived, too. There were many neighborhoods before the one we came to know and live in. There will be many more, and it is okay to embrace change, it is healing.

Lewis wrote about a different kind of change. Social changes, justice and injustice. It is not a recent discovery that racism and discrimination exist. Lewis fought injustice all his life, coming to a realization at the age of 15 that the world was oppressive. However, he urges his community to take action and fight for change. He stated how proud he was of the achievements he’d seen, and he hopes the rising generation will be known for destroying hate with peace.

Both messages speak of change and healing. Whitehead’s writing feels more indirect, making the reader arrive at the conclusions of his statements as they read his piece. Lewis was very direct, telling his readers what his last hopes and wishes were: “Though I may not be here with you, I urge you to answer the highest calling of your heart and stand up for what you truly believe.”

I think that both writers come from a very valid place. Whitehead had his own NYC and his own stories of change. He wasn’t forcing his point of view on the reader, but very tactfully persuading the reader with his imagery and anecdotal style of writing, as if inviting the reader to experience his story together. Lewis also grew up understanding and living the injustices he fought for. He wrote, “In my life I have done all I can to demonstrate that the way of peace, the way of love and nonviolence is the more excellent way. Now it is your turn to let freedom ring.” That is why he was in the right position to ask the next generation to do the same. Personally, both pieces resonate with me because I feel where they’re coming from, and they move me to analyze my inner-self. What am I doing today to contribute to a better future? Will I remain stuck in the past way of life, or move on and embrace changes? The whole world has been affected by covid-19 in one way or another. How will we move forward? I think it’s important to not let reminiscing on the past keep you from growing your future self. Also, everyone may not have the same beliefs, but there is something we can all think of to contribute to a better future. That is something the reader can meditate on.

Baldwin explains what he means by being in a war with society when he says, ” What societies really, ideally, want is a citizenry which will simply obey the rules of society.” This is a paradox because although society educates you to have a conscience about right and wrong, they don’t want you to speak up against or for the right or wrong. Society prefers you to obey the rules they have set up; if you don’t obey you’ve entered a state of war. If you win, society can change, if you lose and give up, “society will perish.”

Many groups have been marginalized throughout history, and that has led to two things: the silent people who can only rage inside waiting to live, and the people that decide to enter the war with society and win. Both have their justified reasons, but unfortunately they did not choose to be put in such a situation. Why must the children of the children continue to live marginalized? Some groups of immigrants have had to flee their own countries only to survive, others were forcefully enslaved throughout history. Being given no opportunity to make a life for yourself should be considered enslavement, too. In page 3, Baldwin states, “What is upsetting the country is a sense of its own identity. If, for example, one managed to change the curriculum in all the schools so that Negroes learned more about themselves and their real contributions to this culture, you would be liberating not only Negroes, you’d be liberating white people who know nothing about their own history.” This use of pathos moves the reader to want change. James Baldwin refers to the world as a larger place in comparison to the short-sighted vision many people have about life. It is true that often children are not taught the vital lessons they will need in life, and then they realize as adults just how much of the world they don’t know, as they were never given a chance before to explore it. The world is large not only geographically, but in so many other aspects such as rich in culture, language, customs, food, occupations, etc. Baldwin would love children to be exposed to the large world, and not withheld in a building providing textbook information but no experience. Baldwin compares this phenomenon to American history: only a portion of history can be taught to someone in their life, and only a portion of it can be understood, never to its full extent. Likewise, the world will never be fully explored by one person in its many aspects, neither will a person comprehend all he needs to know about life. That is why it is important to teach people in their early years what they can learn about the world, they should not be restrained from that. Baldwin states that is a “necessity” to learn about this large world. How else will the children grow up and change the injustices in this world? Changes in teaching from the early beginnings can have an impact on the real world knowledge children can use once they grow up to face the “large world.” Baldwin uses ethos to reinforce this point in page 4, “There must have been a day in this country’s life when the bombing of the children in Sunday School would have created a public uproar and endangered the life of a Governor Wallace. It happened here and there was no public uproar.” A governor in danger, and the public did nothing, no one cared?! These are the rhetorical situations Baldwin used to persuade his reader to action.

The teachers that have had the most impact on me were my shop teachers in high school. They always had wise words and advice for us, they were down to earth, and treated us like their own children. They didn’t take irresponsibility from us, they prepared us for the real world. It’s quite funny to me, they were more professional than most situations I’ve had outside high school. They taught us, at a school where we were all minorities (where one of my shop teachers graduated from, too), in one of the worst neighborhoods, so that we could learn a skill and make a life for ourselves. They took it upon themselves to get to school before 7am, and we would practice our trade 1 hour before school even began. I am forever indebted to them.

I chose “Rhetoric is Synonymous with Empty Speech” by Patricia Roberts-Miller. This article speaks to the idea that many consider rhetoric writing and speech to be untrustworthy. Roberts-Miller states, ” Rhetoric, to them, is something that hides the truth.” The author discusses that considering rhetoric as unreliable is a bad idea. Aristotle, a philosopher, was a teacher of rhetoric. The author describes Aristotle’s stance, “He described it as a discipline and a skill that enables you to see the available means of persuasion.” Interestingly, I believe that the author used rhetoric to convince the reader, or persuade them that it is a bad idea to believe that rhetoric hides the truth. Rhetoric should consider the opposite position of the argument. There are different ways to approach this strategy: a writer may try to persuade you that their argument is right by showing why the other is wrong. A writer may try to persuade you instead by showing the reasons they are right first, and then why the other side is wrong. Finally, the address to the other side can be a single sentence or clause. An example of this use of rhetoric was in one of John F. Kennedy’s speech, in which he said, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.” The author concludes that, as expressed in JFK’s quote, “Rhetoric is a way of thinking. It is not just something added to a thought derived by other means.”

The reason why I chose this article is because in my own writing I try to include rhetoric. I wanted to see the author’s view on rhetoric writing, and I agreed that it can be used as a form of persuasion, rather than “hiding truth.” I’ve written proposals in which I use rhetoric to prove a point, and I briefly address why the counter-party is wrong, which allows me to prove why I’m right. I enjoyed reading this article.

 

For Unit 2, I will change my discourse community so that I can tackle some issues that are close to me. I want to tackle some of the issues introverts may come across, specifically in work-place settings. As a female introvert in a male-dominated field, it is sometimes very difficult for me to be taken seriously. My work ethic and capabilities make people respect me, but at the same time, being an introvert makes it more difficult to voice my opinions and actually be heard when I present an idea. This problem is not unique to me, though. Many introverts can relate to getting interrupted, exhausted from social interaction, and more challenges. I would like to adress these issues in Unit 2.

An article, where I went in expecting little from, has left an impression on me. I did not know how informative the article would be as I clicked on it, and as I began reading the first-person-written text. Why did I click on it? I was intrigued by another topic, initially. However, I decided I’d choose the article, ” ‘Why I’m Behind the Athletes’ Bill of Rights’ ” from Sports Illustrated. I don’t watch sports on a regular, I enjoy watching soccer matches, but definitely, I prioritize other thing before sports. However, I was drawn to this sports-related article because I was curious to see how much I could learn. I had never heard of the Athletes’ Bill of Rights. “What kind of article will this be?,” I asked myself. The subtle use of pathos really got me. Mix that in with the logical mentions to studies and their significance, the article sold. Cory Booker, the author of the article, is a Senator working to change something that’s been going on for way to long: college athletes’ exploitation. I was so extremely upset when I read about a college athlete that helped his team win, at the expense of his own health. He would go to bed hungry because he couldn’t afford a meal! Those in the power to take action and help their athletes have not taken action- in decades. Therefore, the author’s purpose is to garner attention and support to help the athletes, as a former athlete himself, now that he has the power to do so.

Senator Booker referenced NCAA’s own statistics. I understood from context that the NCAA was responsible of the college athletes, although the acronym was not explained, assuming the reader is familiar with the NCAA. I would say that the explanation of NCAA and it’s specific role is something notably absent in the article, however it does not take away from the statement the author is making, considering who his target audience is.  Apart from these details, Senator Booker’s article surpasses my expectations, for it was simple, straightforward, and appeals to both your logic and emotions.

This sports-genre article seemed to work pretty well. I think this because of something Dirk cited in his essay, “In sum, “too much choice is as debilitating of meaning as is too little choice. In language, too much variation results eventually in lack of meaning: mutual unintelligibility” (Devitt, “Genre” 53).” What this means to me is that the further you try to deviate from your genre, the less understandable your writing will be, and in effect, it will also be less appealing. Booker’s article is, on the contrary, focused on its thesis and maintains its focus all throughout the article.