I have enjoyed this blog experience. I do not like, Sam I am, the confining linear structure that archives all my posts the second five more appear, but I appreciate the radial/rhizomic linkage.
Blogs have a ton of potential for expanding classroom discussion. We didn't utilize the blog to its fullest possible imaginable (!) potential, but I think all we did added exponentially to the value of this class for me. I've always enjoyed classes where we can have this freer space to write-think. I don't know if the average student below junior level could make good use of this, but for the rest of us, yes.
I'm thinking about architecture and geographies and spaces ever since RSA plus hearing Kathleen Turner's Arnold Fox-winning paper this semester on "fourthspace" (a concept by NIU's own James Giles). The blockiness, the linearity, of this blog is so limiting and unorganic. I'd prefer a setup like the Huffington Post's homepage or something where blog posts had larger or greater sizes according to how much they were read/used. Something more open, more expandable, less cephalopodan (sorry: I now have all these fun metaphors I now use every chance I get).
Spatial relations. Thinking about space in modern psychological torture (Guantanamo, etc.). Thinking about that Austrian who imprisoned his daughter in his cellar for 24 years. Industrial cement. Bare-bones squares. Square trapdoors. Dark boxes. Pressure devices. Desensitizing acoustics.
What does space look like on this blog? Featureless squares. Windows and doors. Anonymous fonts. What does our space say about us? What content matches all this blankness?
The "blogosphere" - spherical, radial, more organic - is that where the radical comes in? In our connections despite the liminality, the limitations, of our form? Why do I hear this fear, this hesitation, to break out of this safebox, this box, this safe, this square, this imprisoning form, -- and comment on someone else's blog? Come on, take a baby step, I challenge you, everyone in the class (who hasn't already), comment on one other blog and post a link to your comments! Cherry-dipped foam-on-top double-dare ya!
Here is one of mine on Sivacracy.net. (Sivacracy rocks! We should all be posting a million posts there.)
---
“The Wild Iris” by Louise Gluck
At the end of my suffering
there was a door.
Hear me out: that which you call death
I remember.
Overhead, noises, branches of the pine shifting.
Then nothing. The weak sun
flickered over the dry surface.
It is terrible to survive
as consciousness
buried in the dark earth.
Then it was over: that which you fear, being
a soul and unable
to speak, ending abruptly, the stiff earth
bending a little. And what I took to be
birds darting in low shrubs.
You who do not remember
passage from the other world
I tell you I could speak again: whatever
returns from oblivion returns
to find a voice:
from the center of my life came
a great fountain, deep blue
shadows on azure sea water.
4/30/08
Editorial in Northern Star: Online file sharing is not a crime
I guess we somehow missed this editorial written by John Benson last week. He's responding to ITS's decision to disable Internet access for student file sharers if they see suspicious activity.
Some notables from John's editorial:
"In an environment where students share computers and set up ad hoc wireless networks for educational (and, let’s face it, gaming and entertainment) purposes, it’s not always easy to prove, exactly, who did what....
There are perfectly legitimate reasons one might transfer a lot of data for educational purposes, and I encourage students to investigate for themselves the Internet Archive and Creative Commons, where a plethora of information and digital media is freely available and freely distributed....
Suspending students from the network without concrete evidence that they’ve broken the law seems pretty bold to me. If I still lived in the residence halls, I’d be terrified. The absence of due process is scary indeed."
I couldn't have said it better. There have been no comments on the article on the Northern Star website. Leaving your thoughts there might help to spur discussion.
Some notables from John's editorial:
"In an environment where students share computers and set up ad hoc wireless networks for educational (and, let’s face it, gaming and entertainment) purposes, it’s not always easy to prove, exactly, who did what....
There are perfectly legitimate reasons one might transfer a lot of data for educational purposes, and I encourage students to investigate for themselves the Internet Archive and Creative Commons, where a plethora of information and digital media is freely available and freely distributed....
Suspending students from the network without concrete evidence that they’ve broken the law seems pretty bold to me. If I still lived in the residence halls, I’d be terrified. The absence of due process is scary indeed."
I couldn't have said it better. There have been no comments on the article on the Northern Star website. Leaving your thoughts there might help to spur discussion.
4/29/08
class blog
Being a new blogger, the role of the blog in this course has probably been different for me than for most of my classmates. The weekly posting requirement not only helped familiarize me with this blog but others as well. As for its specific role in this course, I used the reading responses to get a better understanding of the readings. And I used the various links (like the EFF link) to come up with an idea for my paper and to find information for my class presentation.
4/28/08
Coldplay follows in Radiohead's Footsteps
Coldplay will make available - free - for one week only their new track "Violet" starting tomorrow. The album is entitled "Viva." They also have two dates for free concerts. Why only one week? I thought the idea behind making free music was for fans who couldn't afford to attend concerts or download music. Back in the day, that was the meaning of free music. Accessing free music today means that fans are pirates and the band provides a small slice as a marketing tool.
Scalia on 60 Minutes
If you didn't get a chance to see this last night, here's the link to read the interview with Scalia. I'm posting this because I know how fond of Justice Scalia many of you are.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/24/60minutes/main4040290.shtml
One great quote: "Anyway, that's my view," Scalia says. "And it happens to be correct."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/24/60minutes/main4040290.shtml
One great quote: "Anyway, that's my view," Scalia says. "And it happens to be correct."
Reading Response: Authorship in the Academy
In “The Crisis in Scholarly Publishing in the Humanities,” Unsworth concludes that a large interested readership (i.e., audience) is necessary for the continuation of scholarship in the humanities (5) and argues that the readership already exists but yearns for the scholarship to be readily available electronically. Although, the idea of online articles as legitimate publication has been a topic of interest among academics for a least a few years now (Into the Blogosphere, Unsworth), university faculty administrators promote the traditional method of printed publications, particularly authoring books, and perpetuate the sense of prestigious accomplishment by directly tying award-winning recognition and professional development to it (2). Somehow Unsworth “flew under the radar” of the typical tenure-track process and climbed up the “institutional” ladder on the merits of his articles—many that are collaborative works and accessible in digital form. He advocates for a new type of scholarly publication, the “Thematic Research Collection” online, and suggests that the number of online users who access the electronic texts would far outweigh the number of customers who purchase printed manuscripts by traditional means, for example, physically going to a bookstore (4). He believes that the “Collection” will be more advantageous to academics and universities alike.
In “Who Owns My Work?” Herrington examines the contributions academics in technical communication make to their universities and the rare cases of litigation between them or between academics and professional organizations. She charges academics to be familiar with university policies and guidelines and even copyright and patent laws to protect their intellectual property and to intelligently advise their students—future academics or professionals (126). Herrington explains that the “work-for-hire” agreements signed by numerous academics are not legally binding; therefore, when a case goes to court, judges look to the agency-partnership laws to determine the best course of action (136). Additionally judges must determine whether or not the “properties” are created under reasonable work responsibilities. She goes on to summarize cases such as Williams v. Weisser (Williams, the professor, won) and Hays v. Sony Corp. of America (Sony Corp. won) and illustrates the arbitrariness of court rulings. To avoid conflict specifically between academics and universities, Herrington encourages the universities to remove the heavy hand from intellectual property and instead cultivate the interests and activities of their academics because their continuing expertise in the field will only enrich their campuses and improve their reputations.
Both Unsworth and Herrington’s articles describe the institutional attitudes of value placed on scholarly work by university faculty administrators as well as judges in the court of law. In Unsworth, electronic publication is not seen as valuable as printed publications. In Herrington, academics and universities fight for the rights of what they perceive as valuable information to them. Though Ede & Lunsford’s “Collaboration and Concepts of Authorship” is not mentioned above, the “value” theme is also present in their article. They discover that a high or low value is placed on scholarship depending on single (high) or collaborative (low) authorship. The conclusion in each of these readings seems to imply that an attitudinal change toward modern ways of publishing, writing, and owning scholarly work will depend on progressive, forward-thinking academics and their students. Those who want to see changes take place will most likely need to be the agents of change in their institutions.
“Into the Blogosphere Review Process: A Statement from the Editors” Into the Blogosphere: Rhetoric, Community, and Culture of Weblogs." Ed. Laura J. Gurak, Smiljana Antonijevic, Laurie Johnson, Clancy Ratliff, and Jessica Reyman. June 2004. 27 April 2008
In “Who Owns My Work?” Herrington examines the contributions academics in technical communication make to their universities and the rare cases of litigation between them or between academics and professional organizations. She charges academics to be familiar with university policies and guidelines and even copyright and patent laws to protect their intellectual property and to intelligently advise their students—future academics or professionals (126). Herrington explains that the “work-for-hire” agreements signed by numerous academics are not legally binding; therefore, when a case goes to court, judges look to the agency-partnership laws to determine the best course of action (136). Additionally judges must determine whether or not the “properties” are created under reasonable work responsibilities. She goes on to summarize cases such as Williams v. Weisser (Williams, the professor, won) and Hays v. Sony Corp. of America (Sony Corp. won) and illustrates the arbitrariness of court rulings. To avoid conflict specifically between academics and universities, Herrington encourages the universities to remove the heavy hand from intellectual property and instead cultivate the interests and activities of their academics because their continuing expertise in the field will only enrich their campuses and improve their reputations.
Both Unsworth and Herrington’s articles describe the institutional attitudes of value placed on scholarly work by university faculty administrators as well as judges in the court of law. In Unsworth, electronic publication is not seen as valuable as printed publications. In Herrington, academics and universities fight for the rights of what they perceive as valuable information to them. Though Ede & Lunsford’s “Collaboration and Concepts of Authorship” is not mentioned above, the “value” theme is also present in their article. They discover that a high or low value is placed on scholarship depending on single (high) or collaborative (low) authorship. The conclusion in each of these readings seems to imply that an attitudinal change toward modern ways of publishing, writing, and owning scholarly work will depend on progressive, forward-thinking academics and their students. Those who want to see changes take place will most likely need to be the agents of change in their institutions.
“Into the Blogosphere Review Process: A Statement from the Editors” Into the Blogosphere: Rhetoric, Community, and Culture of Weblogs." Ed. Laura J. Gurak, Smiljana Antonijevic, Laurie Johnson, Clancy Ratliff, and Jessica Reyman. June 2004. 27 April 2008
4/27/08
Is it all about the money?
Call me naive, but I found it strange that universities would seek patents or copyrights to the work of some faculty, mainly those working in the sciences. What benefit would a university have by claiming such a thing? Reputation? If so, maybe it's a ploy to keep the research at the university, instead of having it follow the individual researchers. However, that doesn't really make sense, because most research is person-dependent, I think, in the sciences; major breakthroughs or epiphanies usually escape documentation, and when they are documented, it's usually the person rather than the institution getting the credit.
If the university held the patents, it could potentially cash out if they sold the patent to a private company, but how often does that happen? From the research I've done on open source software, in the case of the UNIX operating system that was developed jointly with AT&T and UC Berkeley, it was UC Berkeley who fought to maintain rights over their work, and when they won suite against AT&T, UC Berkeley promptly gave the OS to the world as Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) UNIX, which exists to this day in several open source formats (FreeBSD, OpenBSD, etc.) Another example is the Apache server software, the most popular in the world, which was developed at UIUC National Center for Supercomputing Applications; when developers of the project moved elsewhere, rather than let the project die it was completely open sourced and became free to everybody. IBM even later gave support because they figured rightly that making their hardware compatible with the free software everybody had would be an incentive to buy from IBM, and they were right. Here are two cases where patent or proprietary interests from universities worked to everyone's advantage, because such interests where essentially ephemeral from the start. So I guess I've come full circle; maybe it's not so bad that universities seek patents over some of the work of their faculty.
What is curious is that work in the humanities is outside this control; is it because it is unprofitable? As Unsworth points out, that is largely the case; academic monographs are lucky to sell a few hundred copies, if that much. Is there no audience? I think using the example of Postmodern Culture is a little misleading; at least the title sounds interesting to someone who is moderately curious about cultural trends; would Victorian Poetry have the same draw? You decide. Maybe it all comes down to money...
A Moment of Clarity
I've been wondering all semester why I'm so "schizophrenic" about my ideas of authorship. On the one hand, I'm convinced by the criticism of the romanticized individual author and understand the role we all play in authoring knowledge. I'm a new convert to public domain advocacy, for goodness sake. On the other hand, I still feel the tugs of an individual author inside of me (i.e., writing my own final paper rather than collaborating with a fellow student or feeling the pangs of envy when a dean's name goes on a grant proposal I primarily have written).
In addition to recognizing that the individual notion of author is a cultural phenomenon that is easy to succumb to, this week's readings also made me realize that my own education may have had a hand in the "brainwash." After reading Ede and Lunsford as well as Herrington, I'm realizing that this class is the first class I've ever encountered that embraced the collaborative author. Otherwise, I've been learning within institutions that reward individual authorship and from faculty who often must play the single-author game to maintain their status. It's a trite epiphany, I know, but one that at least helps assuage my guilt when the single-author in me rears its ugly head.
In addition to recognizing that the individual notion of author is a cultural phenomenon that is easy to succumb to, this week's readings also made me realize that my own education may have had a hand in the "brainwash." After reading Ede and Lunsford as well as Herrington, I'm realizing that this class is the first class I've ever encountered that embraced the collaborative author. Otherwise, I've been learning within institutions that reward individual authorship and from faculty who often must play the single-author game to maintain their status. It's a trite epiphany, I know, but one that at least helps assuage my guilt when the single-author in me rears its ugly head.
Mein Kampf Critical Edition
Here is an interesting story on the issues surrounding Mein Kampf publication.
Apparently Mein Kampf is banned from publication in Germany, though, as this article points out, it can easily be found online. I did a quick search of Google and found an online copy very easily (second hit!). Scholars are arguing that before Mein Kampf goes into the public domain in 2015, a critical edition with annotations, pointing out Hitler's inconsistencies and factual errors, should be published. They argue that doing so will inform people and allow them to dispute claims of neo-nazis who will use Mein Kampf to their benefit.
Interesting argument. I agree that a critical edition is definitely needed, and the sooner the better, since as the article points out, we don't have 7 years until publication (in Germany), but rather negative time as the text is available online for free. Keeping Mein Kampf carefully tucked away under the disguise of copyright only hurts those seeking to study the text and analyze its rhetoric.
Apparently Mein Kampf is banned from publication in Germany, though, as this article points out, it can easily be found online. I did a quick search of Google and found an online copy very easily (second hit!). Scholars are arguing that before Mein Kampf goes into the public domain in 2015, a critical edition with annotations, pointing out Hitler's inconsistencies and factual errors, should be published. They argue that doing so will inform people and allow them to dispute claims of neo-nazis who will use Mein Kampf to their benefit.
Interesting argument. I agree that a critical edition is definitely needed, and the sooner the better, since as the article points out, we don't have 7 years until publication (in Germany), but rather negative time as the text is available online for free. Keeping Mein Kampf carefully tucked away under the disguise of copyright only hurts those seeking to study the text and analyze its rhetoric.
4/22/08
turnitin.com does not violate copyright
I thought this was already posted, but maybe not--I might be reading too many things online!
Bottom line:
Judge declares turnitin.com does not violate copyright (The decision was last month, but eschoolnews just recently published this article).
http://www.eschoolnews.com/news/top-news/news-by-subject/litigation/?i=53564;_hbguid=606186df-e5c3-438c-906b-a191add1bfe6&d=top-news
Bottom line:
Judge declares turnitin.com does not violate copyright (The decision was last month, but eschoolnews just recently published this article).
http://www.eschoolnews.com/news/top-news/news-by-subject/litigation/?i=53564;_hbguid=606186df-e5c3-438c-906b-a191add1bfe6&d=top-news
YouTube "Muting" Instead of Suspending
Just got this through my RSS feed on YouTube's blog that YouTube is revising its system of "enforcing" copyright infringement and managing misbehavior. YouTube is softening its response to angry users who get their accounts suspended - i think it's all about the benjamins $.
Writers push for laws to maintain Internet freedom
Ripped from the headlines:
Tue Apr 22, 6:52 AM ET
WASHINGTON - Writers are pushing for legislation to guarantee the Internet's status as an open forum for communication. Partic Verrone, the president of the Writers Guild of America, West, is scheduled to appear today before the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee at a hearing entitled "The Future of the Internet." - Associated Press
Net neutrality is being defended again.
Tue Apr 22, 6:52 AM ET
WASHINGTON - Writers are pushing for legislation to guarantee the Internet's status as an open forum for communication. Partic Verrone, the president of the Writers Guild of America, West, is scheduled to appear today before the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee at a hearing entitled "The Future of the Internet." - Associated Press
Net neutrality is being defended again.
"Science 2.0"
Collaborative science. It's come up a few times in class (by Walter, IIRC).
Anyway, Scientific American has an article called "Science 2.0--Is Open Access Science the Future" (Printer friendly format, yay!) about collaboration on scientific discoveries using the Web 2.0 model of collaboration (e.g., Wikis).
How would this kind of thing work in the humanities? I wonder how shifts in ideology would affect such an entity in the humanities.
Via Slashdot. I mentioned the Sokal Hoax in the discussion...we'll see how that goes over.
Anyway, Scientific American has an article called "Science 2.0--Is Open Access Science the Future" (Printer friendly format, yay!) about collaboration on scientific discoveries using the Web 2.0 model of collaboration (e.g., Wikis).
How would this kind of thing work in the humanities? I wonder how shifts in ideology would affect such an entity in the humanities.
Via Slashdot. I mentioned the Sokal Hoax in the discussion...we'll see how that goes over.
4/21/08
Reading Response
Personal Response: When people ask me, “What are you studying in school?” I respond that I am majoring in English. Then they ask, “Oh, are you going to teach?” Then, I respond no. Then, they ask, “Oh, so what are you going to do?” I respond that I am in the Rhetoric and Professional Writing program at NIU and I am going to write. Then they ask, “Oh, are you going to write poetry or books?” I respond no. Then, they ask, “Oh, so what are you going to do exactly?” I respond that I am going to do technical writing. Then, they ask, “Oh, so you’re going to write how-to manuals?”
Reading Response: Having a technical writing background, I have felt like the proverbial underdog. I truly appreciate the articles Dr. Reyman asked us to read for tonight’s class. In particular, I appreciate the Slack et al. reworking of the role of the technical communicator beyond “a purveyor of meanings…” and “a mediator of meanings…” I appreciate their push to view the role of the technical communicator as an “author who acts as articulator.”
I agree with the authors that outdated notions and analogies of technical writers as mere transmitters of packages of information and encoders telegraphing to decoders have defined the traditional technical communicator. I agree that these simplistic views limit the role and scope of the work done by the technical communicator. What I hoped for next in the article was a clear delineation of the new and improved technical communicator as authorial articulator. In a rare moment of agreement with Walter Jacobson, I, too, stumbled on the “identity train.” The analogy served to be more of a distraction than an enhancement to my understanding of the authors’ claim. I do agree that technical communicators influence the information they re-write through a Bakhtinian “articulation of voices.” I agree that technical communicators act as the author of technical text and do have an authorial power. I do not believe that they will ever attain the “status” of the traditional author. Shakespeare we ain’t.
In the last portion of the article, the authors push theoretical knowledge as being critical to the technical communication field. I think that the notion of the technical writer has changed since this article was conceived. Searching through job ads on Careerbuilder.com or Monster.com, one can see job postings for the outdated technical writer archetype as a 'robotic' cut-and-paste typist diminishing. The demand for a sophisticated communicator who can “skillfully use effective grammar, edit, media management, and so on” must also participate in “the early stages of project design”, manage the project, and act as a critical thinker is on the rise. The call for a master’s degree in many, many job postings, for me, implies that employers are searching for “technical communicators as authorial articulators.” I think that this article may have been relevant to the writing community at some point. However, it seems a little redundant now. I think the writing community has gravitated to the idea that a technical communicator does act as an author – at least as a collaborative author. I think digital media has significantly affected the job function of a technical writer. Just speculation, perhaps technology has enabled the technical author to move beyond formatting and re-typing and granted more “authorial power” and collaboration.
Anyhow, the people who ask me what I’m going to do for a living can and will continue to think of me as a “messenger.”
Reading Response: Having a technical writing background, I have felt like the proverbial underdog. I truly appreciate the articles Dr. Reyman asked us to read for tonight’s class. In particular, I appreciate the Slack et al. reworking of the role of the technical communicator beyond “a purveyor of meanings…” and “a mediator of meanings…” I appreciate their push to view the role of the technical communicator as an “author who acts as articulator.”
I agree with the authors that outdated notions and analogies of technical writers as mere transmitters of packages of information and encoders telegraphing to decoders have defined the traditional technical communicator. I agree that these simplistic views limit the role and scope of the work done by the technical communicator. What I hoped for next in the article was a clear delineation of the new and improved technical communicator as authorial articulator. In a rare moment of agreement with Walter Jacobson, I, too, stumbled on the “identity train.” The analogy served to be more of a distraction than an enhancement to my understanding of the authors’ claim. I do agree that technical communicators influence the information they re-write through a Bakhtinian “articulation of voices.” I agree that technical communicators act as the author of technical text and do have an authorial power. I do not believe that they will ever attain the “status” of the traditional author. Shakespeare we ain’t.
In the last portion of the article, the authors push theoretical knowledge as being critical to the technical communication field. I think that the notion of the technical writer has changed since this article was conceived. Searching through job ads on Careerbuilder.com or Monster.com, one can see job postings for the outdated technical writer archetype as a 'robotic' cut-and-paste typist diminishing. The demand for a sophisticated communicator who can “skillfully use effective grammar, edit, media management, and so on” must also participate in “the early stages of project design”, manage the project, and act as a critical thinker is on the rise. The call for a master’s degree in many, many job postings, for me, implies that employers are searching for “technical communicators as authorial articulators.” I think that this article may have been relevant to the writing community at some point. However, it seems a little redundant now. I think the writing community has gravitated to the idea that a technical communicator does act as an author – at least as a collaborative author. I think digital media has significantly affected the job function of a technical writer. Just speculation, perhaps technology has enabled the technical author to move beyond formatting and re-typing and granted more “authorial power” and collaboration.
Anyhow, the people who ask me what I’m going to do for a living can and will continue to think of me as a “messenger.”
Read this article in today's Northern Star if you are still curious about how our university responds to filesharing. I find this section rather interesting:
The MPAA is trying to get legislation passed that would pressure universities to police their own networks – something that would be unmanageable, he said.
“The MPAA has been consistently trying to get [universities’] funding changed,” he said. “For some reason, they’ve decided we are weak.”
In addition to the MPAA and the RIAA targeting individuals, ITS, on rare occasions, will disable a student’s Internet access if they see suspicious activity, Czerniak said.
“If we detect an inordinate amount of activity on a particular IP, we may go shut it down,” Czerniak said. “We then contact the student and see what’s going on. It may or may not have to do with copyright issues.”
I'm writing a letter.
/jb
The MPAA is trying to get legislation passed that would pressure universities to police their own networks – something that would be unmanageable, he said.
“The MPAA has been consistently trying to get [universities’] funding changed,” he said. “For some reason, they’ve decided we are weak.”
In addition to the MPAA and the RIAA targeting individuals, ITS, on rare occasions, will disable a student’s Internet access if they see suspicious activity, Czerniak said.
“If we detect an inordinate amount of activity on a particular IP, we may go shut it down,” Czerniak said. “We then contact the student and see what’s going on. It may or may not have to do with copyright issues.”
I'm writing a letter.
/jb
Reading Response
As I was reading this week’s articles, specifically Herrington’s “Work for Hire for Nonacademic Creators,” I continually found myself trying to relate the discussions of technical communication to my limited related experience. Despite knowing that today’s authors were not writing about copy editors and newspaper columnists (my former jobs), I wanted to find ways to equate my work to their writings. Even though I don’t believe I could accurately call myself a technical communicator at any point in my history, the arguments that were made in this week’s reading, mainly that students need to be informed of their role in and knowledgeable of the applicable laws surrounding the technical communications profession, would have benefited me greatly in my former occupations.
Herrington illustrates the nonacademic applications of work-for-hire doctrine, individually showcasing each determining factor that courts use for deciding legal authorship and then relating each to the teaching of technical communication by suggesting why students should be aware of specifics of legal authorship. As I was reading her article, I was reminded of some writing I did will while employed as a copy editor for a veterinary organization.
Although my main job was to copy edit manuscripts to be published in a research journal, occasionally I was asked to write newspaper-type stories for the yearly conference newspaper. For last year’s conference, I wrote a series of ten-question trivia quizzes about Washington, D.C. Upon publication, I was quite upset to see that I was not given credit for writing the quizzes and that the quizzes had been heavily edited, something that as creative writing student, I was not used to. In school, I frequently participated in writing workshops and received much feedback and many suggestions from fellow students, but I was never told to change anything in my writing. To have my writing, even though it was a series of quizzes, edited without my knowledge and published before I was able to even see the edits, felt like a slap in the face.
As I was reading this past week and formulating ideas about technical communicators, I started to see how an understanding of this “different” authorship, as N. Nyl points out in a comment to June Cleaver’s plagiarism and PowerPoint post, would have prevented these hostile feelings I held towards my employer and would have prepared me for the workplace that I entered. What I wrote wasn’t mine, from a legal standpoint; I wrote as a representative of the organization I worked for, and as such, my writing could be edited by another representative without my knowledge, or as far as the organization was concerned, without me caring.
Many English and other majors will find themselves in jobs that they did not foresee while in school. Many of these jobs will require these students to write (or create) collaborative or technical projects for which they may or may not receive authorial credit (they will hopefully receive credit indirectly in terms of salary, bonuses, and promotions). Many, if not most, of these students, just as myself, will not have taken any technical communications courses before entering the workplace. Herrington and Reyman both call for an increased awareness by students of how their work will be used in an employment setting. But, not having foreseen their future occupations, where will these students come upon this insight into the ways of the technical communications profession? I would argue that students need to be exposed to these ideas of varying types of authorship early and repeatedly in college courses. Writing or composition classes can discuss these ideas as they apply to genre, and other classes in the students’ majors can illustrate more specific instances of how authorship applies to their discipline. By showing all students that our Western model of single authorship is not the only practicing model, we will prepare them for the corporate and collaborative author-role that they will likely encounter in their future employment.YouTube Campaigning
A look at presidential candidates trying to keep it real with the peeps online: "The Web has replaced TV, and e-mail has replaced direct mail, as the current modes of wholesale campaigning."
Is it realer online? Is there a real-feeling or authenticity or authority to the YouTube/Facebook types?
Is it realer online? Is there a real-feeling or authenticity or authority to the YouTube/Facebook types?
4/20/08
plagiarism
I have been thinking about plagiarism and PowerPoint presentations (interesting the way spell-check wanted to capitalize that, but can’t find ostrobogulous in its dictionary). Point taken already—give credit where credit is due. So why can we all use PowerPoint to express ourselves and seemingly hold a copyright on the show itself? Isn’t the format copyrighted to the extent that we can’t legally do that? No, you say, because books have pretty much the same format and so do academic papers for that matter. Then why capitalize Power Point? And why do we have to pay to use it? This is where all the talk about technical communication starts getting funky for me; I’m just not sure where the lines are drawn. You can borrow some things, but not others. In Reyman’s “Rethinking Plagiarism for Technical Communication,” the author attempts to shed some light on this subject as well as propose that new lines be drawn, specifically for technical communication. In order for me to wrap my feeble brain around some of the issues, I’ve had to liken them to an area I have (albeit not much) experience in, which is writing lesson plans.
Attend any English conference and you will walk away with an armload of lesson plans, usually none of which have a “copyright” clearly emblazoned on them. In fact, teachers are encouraged to plagiarize—that is, take the plan, use it, and make any changes you like whereby it becomes yours. Personally, I have written “adapted from” at the bottom if I used someone else’s plan and changed it, but that’s certainly not a requirement (and only when I was giving the changed version to someone else). There are websites, such as the National Counsel of Teachers of English (NCTE), which have tons of viewable lessons plans complete with a “printer-friendly version” icon. No one seems worried about getting paid for the print and every lesson I’ve received from an author comes with the implicit agreement to email the author if you can improve the plan in any way. Long story short, it’s a collaboration. I think technical communication is pretty much the same because the formats are similar and people consistently work together toward the improvement of the final product. Read: “progress.” Furthermore, regarding technical communication, it seems silly to consider something as “plagiarized” just because the format is standardized. Letters, numerals, colors, tastes, are all standardized. We have to all speak the same language if we are to understand and learn from one another and/or work together.
So here I am, fighting for the right to say that these things aren’t plagiarized, but there’s a sneaking suspicion about the motivation. I realize that while I’m busy yelling to consider things “standardized” instead of “plagiarized,” the people who are making the standardization so free are actually the people who would most like to see Americans as cattle to be herded. Ah ha, that’s the long-term goal nowadays, isn’t it? For everyone to speak/think/behave alike and be good workers for big business? Why else would PowerPoint presentations be so user-friendly? So they’ve got me fighting for what they want. Amazing. Great. Now I’m even more confused.
Attend any English conference and you will walk away with an armload of lesson plans, usually none of which have a “copyright” clearly emblazoned on them. In fact, teachers are encouraged to plagiarize—that is, take the plan, use it, and make any changes you like whereby it becomes yours. Personally, I have written “adapted from” at the bottom if I used someone else’s plan and changed it, but that’s certainly not a requirement (and only when I was giving the changed version to someone else). There are websites, such as the National Counsel of Teachers of English (NCTE), which have tons of viewable lessons plans complete with a “printer-friendly version” icon. No one seems worried about getting paid for the print and every lesson I’ve received from an author comes with the implicit agreement to email the author if you can improve the plan in any way. Long story short, it’s a collaboration. I think technical communication is pretty much the same because the formats are similar and people consistently work together toward the improvement of the final product. Read: “progress.” Furthermore, regarding technical communication, it seems silly to consider something as “plagiarized” just because the format is standardized. Letters, numerals, colors, tastes, are all standardized. We have to all speak the same language if we are to understand and learn from one another and/or work together.
So here I am, fighting for the right to say that these things aren’t plagiarized, but there’s a sneaking suspicion about the motivation. I realize that while I’m busy yelling to consider things “standardized” instead of “plagiarized,” the people who are making the standardization so free are actually the people who would most like to see Americans as cattle to be herded. Ah ha, that’s the long-term goal nowadays, isn’t it? For everyone to speak/think/behave alike and be good workers for big business? Why else would PowerPoint presentations be so user-friendly? So they’ve got me fighting for what they want. Amazing. Great. Now I’m even more confused.
4/16/08
Rowling and Copyright
Interesting bit about Rowling getting upset about a Harry Potter encyclopedia. Couple of questions: are reference works on books not in the public domain usually allowed? Why is this becoming an issue now when the work is going to print and not over the last few years when the site has been online? Could Rowling be jealous that someone else got to the project before she did (Rowling has admitted before that she plans to publish a Harry Potter encyclopedia)?
On a personal note: as I've been working on a large Harry Potter project, I have frequently used the Harry Potter Lexicon as a reference.
On a personal note: as I've been working on a large Harry Potter project, I have frequently used the Harry Potter Lexicon as a reference.
4/14/08
huh.
I just received Michael Chabon's new book in the mail five minutes ago. I thought the epigraph was interesting:
The more I dive into this matter of whaling, and push my researches up to the very spring-head of it, so much the more am I impressed with its great honorableness and antiquity; and especially when I find so many great demi-gods and heroes, prophets of all sorts, who one way or other have shed distinction upon it, I am transported with the reflection that I myself belong, though but subordinately, to so emblazoned a fraternity.
-- Herman Melville, on the writing of fan fiction
The more I dive into this matter of whaling, and push my researches up to the very spring-head of it, so much the more am I impressed with its great honorableness and antiquity; and especially when I find so many great demi-gods and heroes, prophets of all sorts, who one way or other have shed distinction upon it, I am transported with the reflection that I myself belong, though but subordinately, to so emblazoned a fraternity.
-- Herman Melville, on the writing of fan fiction
Man "writes" 200,000 books
Surely even Asimov wasn't that prolific. But this guy has some help (via Boing Boing post by Cory Doctorow).
Related to that, one of my "followers" on Twitter posted this little blurb about automating authorship.
What would happen if your students wrote a program to write their papers?
I don't even want to bring up copyright.
Related to that, one of my "followers" on Twitter posted this little blurb about automating authorship.
There is no doubt, though, the book — or at least the physical artifact we know as “book” — is in something of a crisis. Not too long ago, I heard Ken Wark, a Professor of Culture and Media at The New School’s Eugene Lang College, remark that the professor is now really a “DJ,” as books are no longer assigned to students; rather, collections of essays are gathered up in readers, or, increasingly, just pointed to on the web. What was “the book” is now a mashup. It’s significant that the academy no longer views the book as the center of learning.Are our syllabuses degenerating into patch-writing? So, all you teachers are to blame!
What would happen if your students wrote a program to write their papers?
I don't even want to bring up copyright.
An Example of What I'm Talking About
Bruce Catton has long been recognized as one of our greatest Civil War historians and one of the most elegant and eloquent writers to address that monumental subject -- the Homer of our national Iliad, if you will. Here's a passage about the battle of Gettysburg from This Hallowed Ground:
"It was the queer fate of the men who fought over the great question of Union that this most desperate and spectacular of all their battles should not be entirely comprehensible until after all of the dead had been buried, the wounded tended, the field itself made into a park, and the armies gone far below the horizon, fighting other battles in other places. Then the President would come and speak a few sentences, and the deep meaning of the fight would at last begin to clear. Then the perplexing mists and shadows would fade and Gettysburg would reveal itself as a great height from which men could glimpse a vista extending far into the undiscovered future."
All he's really saying here is that Gettysburg would come to symbolize the entire war for many, that it changed everything, that it was, to put it in the terms we all got from our sixth-grade history teachers, the turning-point of the war. Of course he's also saying much more than that -- that the battle would come to be seen as the defining event of the war, just as the war itself was the defining event of nineteenth-century American history. In both cases, nothing could ever be the same again.
Now, I have actually assigned chapters from Catton's book in first-year composition classes (including the chapter on Gettysburg), and what I'm most struck by is the extent to which virtually ALL of my students recognize this as great writing, and, in fact, a clear example of great autonomous authorship. They get that WHAT he's saying isn't particularly new (nor was in 1955 when the book was first published), but that HOW he says it is uniquely his. The individual expression of common ideas here is what matters to them. They also get that "patchwriting" something out of this passage would not somehow make it less Catton's or more theirs.
Seems to me they have a clearer understanding of authorship than Howard and her cohorts are willing to admit.
"It was the queer fate of the men who fought over the great question of Union that this most desperate and spectacular of all their battles should not be entirely comprehensible until after all of the dead had been buried, the wounded tended, the field itself made into a park, and the armies gone far below the horizon, fighting other battles in other places. Then the President would come and speak a few sentences, and the deep meaning of the fight would at last begin to clear. Then the perplexing mists and shadows would fade and Gettysburg would reveal itself as a great height from which men could glimpse a vista extending far into the undiscovered future."
All he's really saying here is that Gettysburg would come to symbolize the entire war for many, that it changed everything, that it was, to put it in the terms we all got from our sixth-grade history teachers, the turning-point of the war. Of course he's also saying much more than that -- that the battle would come to be seen as the defining event of the war, just as the war itself was the defining event of nineteenth-century American history. In both cases, nothing could ever be the same again.
Now, I have actually assigned chapters from Catton's book in first-year composition classes (including the chapter on Gettysburg), and what I'm most struck by is the extent to which virtually ALL of my students recognize this as great writing, and, in fact, a clear example of great autonomous authorship. They get that WHAT he's saying isn't particularly new (nor was in 1955 when the book was first published), but that HOW he says it is uniquely his. The individual expression of common ideas here is what matters to them. They also get that "patchwriting" something out of this passage would not somehow make it less Catton's or more theirs.
Seems to me they have a clearer understanding of authorship than Howard and her cohorts are willing to admit.
Authorship: Not so hard to grasp, really
A few thoughts on the subject of authorship, provoked mostly by our readings:
An awareness of intertextuality is not the same thing as authorship. Film is an inherently intertextual medium, and individual films are constructed through the collaboration of writers, actors, photographers, designers, editors, composers, and technicians. We recognize the screenwriter as the author of the screenplay, the composer as the author of the score, the actor as the author of the performance, and the director as the author of the film.
Frankly, I (and, I would submit, most of us) don't find the concept of authorship nearly as problematic as some of our theorists would like. I fail to see how the idea that our conception of authorship is comparatively recent changes anything -- it is still OUR conception. Besides which, I would also like to suggest for the record that, while the concepts of originality, individualism, and spontaneity ARE relatively recent additions to our notions of authorship, the concept of individual or autonomous authorship has been with us for just about as long as human expression itself. Homer, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides are all unproblematically recognized by Aristotle as the autonomous authors of their respective works -- interesting considering that Homer's epics were most probably composed orally as part of a long oral tradition and Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides were all playwrights who wrote for performance, to say nothing of the fact that every single one of them was dealing with well-known stories that were ancient even to them (all four of them, for example, dealt with the events and characters of the Trojan War).
And it's this very fact that gets at the heart of how unproblematic authorship really is: nobody in fifth-century Athens cared about the STORY, which was recognized as public property; what mattered to them was the individual expression or treatment of the story. Believe me, Aeschylus' Libation Bearers, Sophocles' Electra, and Euripides' Electra are very different plays, though they deal with exactly the same characters and exactly the same events. What makes them different is the autonomous author who gave individual expression to the story.
My point? No one is suggesting that writing or authorship happens in a vacuum -- obviously writers are all influenced by other writers and creators (which is not the same thing as collaboration). But if we do not teach our students that there is a difference between giving original expression to commonly held facts and ideas (whatever the source of those ideas might be) and claiming someone else's expression of those ideas as your own, we are not only setting them up to fail, we are also quite simply refusing to do the jobs those very students trust us to do.
An awareness of intertextuality is not the same thing as authorship. Film is an inherently intertextual medium, and individual films are constructed through the collaboration of writers, actors, photographers, designers, editors, composers, and technicians. We recognize the screenwriter as the author of the screenplay, the composer as the author of the score, the actor as the author of the performance, and the director as the author of the film.
Frankly, I (and, I would submit, most of us) don't find the concept of authorship nearly as problematic as some of our theorists would like. I fail to see how the idea that our conception of authorship is comparatively recent changes anything -- it is still OUR conception. Besides which, I would also like to suggest for the record that, while the concepts of originality, individualism, and spontaneity ARE relatively recent additions to our notions of authorship, the concept of individual or autonomous authorship has been with us for just about as long as human expression itself. Homer, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides are all unproblematically recognized by Aristotle as the autonomous authors of their respective works -- interesting considering that Homer's epics were most probably composed orally as part of a long oral tradition and Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides were all playwrights who wrote for performance, to say nothing of the fact that every single one of them was dealing with well-known stories that were ancient even to them (all four of them, for example, dealt with the events and characters of the Trojan War).
And it's this very fact that gets at the heart of how unproblematic authorship really is: nobody in fifth-century Athens cared about the STORY, which was recognized as public property; what mattered to them was the individual expression or treatment of the story. Believe me, Aeschylus' Libation Bearers, Sophocles' Electra, and Euripides' Electra are very different plays, though they deal with exactly the same characters and exactly the same events. What makes them different is the autonomous author who gave individual expression to the story.
My point? No one is suggesting that writing or authorship happens in a vacuum -- obviously writers are all influenced by other writers and creators (which is not the same thing as collaboration). But if we do not teach our students that there is a difference between giving original expression to commonly held facts and ideas (whatever the source of those ideas might be) and claiming someone else's expression of those ideas as your own, we are not only setting them up to fail, we are also quite simply refusing to do the jobs those very students trust us to do.
4/12/08
Howard and Turnitin
For anyone interested (and because we are required to post to other sites), Dr. Howard has a rather lengthy post on Turnitin. It might be a good time to read her recent thoughts on plagiarism and invite her to join our discussion here.
A thought.
A thought.
Copyright Info for Middle Schoolers
This is TMI (too much information) for middle schoolers, don't you think?
I guess by the time these middle schoolers reach college, they would not be plagiarists or patchwriters for that matter.
http://www.waunakee.k12.wi.us/midlschl/msb/copyright.htm
I guess by the time these middle schoolers reach college, they would not be plagiarists or patchwriters for that matter.
http://www.waunakee.k12.wi.us/midlschl/msb/copyright.htm
Parody vs. Plagiarism
I know that parodic material is not in danger of copyright infringement, but today, for some reason, I'm bothered by this. Maybe bothered is too strong. Puzzled may be the right word. Here's how I see it.
Those who use copyrighted material to poke fun at others and draw attention to negative publicity do not need permission to use the material and are not in danger of the "copyright police." In contrast, those who use copyrighted material to edify others and create derivative works that are shared freely with society may find themselves in legal battles surrounding copyright laws if they did not get permission or pay for the right to use the material.
Have I missed something? If so, please help me understand.
If what I said above is essentially right, then isn't something terribly wrong?
Those who use copyrighted material to poke fun at others and draw attention to negative publicity do not need permission to use the material and are not in danger of the "copyright police." In contrast, those who use copyrighted material to edify others and create derivative works that are shared freely with society may find themselves in legal battles surrounding copyright laws if they did not get permission or pay for the right to use the material.
Have I missed something? If so, please help me understand.
If what I said above is essentially right, then isn't something terribly wrong?
Fanning "Napster" VW Commercial
I just saw this commercial on television. Isn't it interesting that Fanning has gone from the promoter of p2p filesharing to the corporate spokesperson for a car company, all while promoting legal downloading methods. I mean...Legal is so much cooler.... Who would have thought that the creator of Napster would one day end up a spokesperson for the same thing as Heidi Klum. The mind boggles.
Net Neutrality
For those of you who are interested on how others are trying to stimulate public will around Internet-related issues...
"Support Net Neutrality: Say 'No' to Corporate Control "
When I saw this bumper sticker, I was intrigued to see what issue fueled (excuse the pun) the vehicular picket sign. My Google search led me to "Save the Internet," a site built by a coalition focusing on how corporations use the Internet to control access to information. The coalition warns:
...Corporate control of the Web would reduce your choices and stifle the spread of innovative and independent ideas that we've come to expect online. It would throw the digital revolution into reverse. Internet gatekeepers are already discriminating against Web sites and services they don't like:
- In October 2007, the Associated Press busted Comcast for blocking its users' access to peer-to-peer file-sharing networks like BitTorrent and Gnutella. This fraudulent practice is a glaring violation of Net Neutrality.
- In September 2007, Verizon was caught banning pro-choice text messages. After a New York Times expose, the phone company reversed its policy, claiming it was a glitch.
I find it interesting that the site is using the anti-corporate rhetoric we've come to know and love, but also that they are trying to create a framework using one of Boyle's requirements: finding a common interest which cuts across traditional oppositions. On the homepage, they invite readers to "learn more about an issue that unites the Christian Coalition, Teamsters, PETA, video gamers, the ACLU, Gun Owners of America and many more."
DeVoss and Porter
DeVoss and Porter work towards an understanding of the cultural impact of Napster and the ripple effect that it has had on the academic community, particularly the teaching of writing and rhetoric. With the idea that the emergence of Napster caused a cultural shift in the way that people, especially students, deal with and understand printed material, DeVoss and Porter connect the copyright crisis to writing instruction. With this shift in mind, the authors reiterate the initial understanding of copyright law. As it was originally conceived, copyright law was meant to balance the interests of authors, publishers, and their readers. DeVoss and Porter argue that we, as a society, have lost sight of the original aims of the law and that as a result we are sacrificing information and media that should be available to the public. Furthermore, since the attack is already well underway on those who infringe on entertainment copyrights, the academic world, that necessitates a free exchange of information, is the next field at risk.
By hindering the free transference of information between academics, DeVoss and Porter fear that the creativity of the academic community will be stifled by less exposure to new ideas and thoughts. The reality that these authors see is the opposite of the more utopian ideas of Lessig. For Lessig, in an ideal situation, all culture would freely available to whomever was interested. This idea encourages an understanding of piracy as productive and innovative, yielding more positive things for society than negatively taking away from them.
Ultimately, DeVoss and Porter are calling for an altered understanding of the relationship from writing an object to publishing. In the post Napster era, the publication process takes on new levels of meaning and begins to resemble something more free form and constantly evolving. This contradicts current academic models of publication, but speaks to technological advancements that allow for more up to date information. As a result of this changing model, DeVoss and Porter call for a change in the understanding and teaching of plagiarism in the writing classroom. Rather than merely discouraging the act, the authors encourage teachers to instruct their students to think of their own writing as something that is inherently formed by their experiences and exposure to other writing, music, video etc... Rather than understanding that borrowing from any other source and working it into their own object is plagiarism, students should be encouraged to understand their place in the academic world, and appreciate that all writing is influenced by something else, including famous pieces of written works or culture.
By hindering the free transference of information between academics, DeVoss and Porter fear that the creativity of the academic community will be stifled by less exposure to new ideas and thoughts. The reality that these authors see is the opposite of the more utopian ideas of Lessig. For Lessig, in an ideal situation, all culture would freely available to whomever was interested. This idea encourages an understanding of piracy as productive and innovative, yielding more positive things for society than negatively taking away from them.
Ultimately, DeVoss and Porter are calling for an altered understanding of the relationship from writing an object to publishing. In the post Napster era, the publication process takes on new levels of meaning and begins to resemble something more free form and constantly evolving. This contradicts current academic models of publication, but speaks to technological advancements that allow for more up to date information. As a result of this changing model, DeVoss and Porter call for a change in the understanding and teaching of plagiarism in the writing classroom. Rather than merely discouraging the act, the authors encourage teachers to instruct their students to think of their own writing as something that is inherently formed by their experiences and exposure to other writing, music, video etc... Rather than understanding that borrowing from any other source and working it into their own object is plagiarism, students should be encouraged to understand their place in the academic world, and appreciate that all writing is influenced by something else, including famous pieces of written works or culture.
DeVoss and Porter – Meet the New Boss (same as the old boss?)
Of course, my title comes from a song lyric; have I used it fairly? Am I required to provide a citation, footnote, or other acknowledgment? To whom, Pete Townsend, Roger Daltry, the Who?
Since most of the first half to two-thirds of the essay reads as a summary of Logie and Lessig (with a few points added in), I will address only two claims in the concluding sections. Generally, DeVoss and Porter (as does Howard to a degree) enlarge upon the classical models of learning and classical attitudes toward plagiarism to support the insistence that the concept of single authorship is a more contemporary creation (see footnote 30, 197). Well, so is mass literacy and general education. In Classical Greece and
Cherry-picking from a culture because it fits a particular view one has is much like quoting out-of-context (of course for those advocating patchwriting that probably wouldn’t be a problem). It would in fact be similar to citing Marx as an expert on human nature because he understood economics – at least in part he did. He seemed to be wildly off the mark in his predictions for capitalism and the glorious workers’ revolution. Perhaps the Greek and Roman models worked well for them because they met the needs of fewer than twenty-thousand, when in all likelihood one couldn’t get away with plagiarism anyway because most of the audience knew the sources. One could argue in fact, that this “truth” might have applied to most of
My other issue with DeVoss and Porter applies not only to them specifically but to postmodern theory generally. DeVoss and Porter exclaim: “As we see it, the purpose of writing is not to reward the author, or for the author to gain prestige, credit, wealth, and fame” (200, their italics). Hmmm. There’s carrion we should nose here somewhere. When asked by Socrates’ biographer why the humble collaborators did not themselves publish in the online communities they advocate, DeVoss and Porter demurred: “We don’t always necessarily want money from our work. . . . Most of us do want: (1) wide distribution and recognition of our work, and (2) credit for our work (whether in the form of dollars, prestige, appreciation, reciprocity)” (196, footnote 28, my italics). How does one square these views? The above constitutes the problem for postmodern theory: the expressed purposes and pronouncements are at odds with the practices of the theorists. What is the Greek word for hypocrite?
4/11/08
In the time since Monday's class I've been occupied with other things, but every time I have gone into my classroom I feel a overwhelming urge to talk to them about plagiarism. Not because I'm especially concerned that the group of students in front of me at the time is going to run out and plagiarize their final paper for my course, or because I'm concerned that some have already slipped by me, but because I am interested in their thoughts on our Monday night discussion. I truly believe that the most important thing that we can teach our students is the form and process of writing an academic and intelligent paper. I also believe, as I said in class, that if a student understands the structure of a paper and what separates their writing from that of the ongoing academic discussion, they can work to address those things regardless of vocabulary or experience. Isn't the most important thing about writing following the form of the academic model? And, isn't a key component to that model the uptight and rigid manner in which academic ideas are usually expressed? I find it hard to accept that any other than laziness accounts for plagiarism when I take stock of the wide range of writing styles that we willingly accept as academic and intelligent on a daily basis. This has been more of my own rambling than any attempt to make a solid point, but there it is...
4/10/08
Part III, Collaborators: A Funny Thing Happened in the Forum (Part II)
I will state it categorically at this point: Foucault is an ass who has done irreparable damage to our discipline. The misapplication of his nonsensical “theories” has led to too many attempts such as Howard’s to excuse academic laziness and mediocrity. But don’t let me try to persuade you; here’s a snippet from Richard Dawkins’ ”Postmodernism Disrobed”:
Suppose you are an intellectual impostor with nothing to say, but with strong ambitions to succeed in academic life, collect a coterie of reverent disciples and have students around the world anoint your pages with respectful yellow highlighter. What kind of literary style would you cultivate? Not a lucid one, surely, for clarity would expose your lack of content.
I recommend reading the remainder of the essay; it is hilarious, and you will come across some familiar names. Rather than relying solely on scientists, however, try the following from Joe Carroll’s Literary Darwinism:
By eliminating truth, poststructuralism yields epistemological and ontological primacy to rhetoric or "discourse," and it simultaneously delegitimizes all traditional norms. Since poststructuralism treats all norms as arbitrary, it has a convenient application within the field of radical political ideology. (16)
Theorists do not need to be abstruse and evasive, unless what they theorize lacks coherence or even common sense. We do not need to be ashamed for having once believed in an Oedipal complex, but we should be ashamed for believing it today or peddling variations of it (some feminist and Lacanian theories) when a whole body of scientific and social scientific evidence has soundly refuted Freud’s pseudo-psychology. Howard’s problem here is that she has tried to create a problem that only exists if one accepts postmodern premises that ignore scientific evidence to the contrary. Humans are social creatures; we are moral. We tend to expose cheaters because we have been designed (randomly by natural selection) to expose cheaters. Plagiarism is indeed a cultural phenomenon, but it is also a moral one. We were not designed specifically to address plagiarism; we were, however, designed to address instances of moral transgression. Plagiarism maps onto that moral algorithm quite nicely.
Part III, Collaborators: A Funny Thing Happened in the Forum (Part I)
Rebecca Moore Howard completes her tour de force with a patch-written consortium of suspect theories stated as fact, and strident conflations of copyright and plagiarism – one a criminal violation of a statute, the other a breach of ethical conduct outlined in academic handbooks. Her tortured (and torturing) logic, or lack thereof, often borders on the hilarious. In one instance, she avers: “Plagiarism-checking software excludes both authorial intention and reader interpretation in the construction of authorship. By automating textual purity, plagiarism-checking software naturalizes the increasingly embattled modern economy of authorship, even as the human factors that it elides would reveal that economy as a cultural arbitrary” (130). I would have paraphrased this passage, but in order to do so, I would need to know just what the hell she means. First, software designed to detect plagiarism can only do what it has been designed to do – detect instances of plagiarism. Suggesting that software is a soulless machine that cannot take into account current theories (and theories, not empirical truths – those could be programmed into the software) of authorship would be like complaining that the ATM would not give me a thousand dollars when it is only designed to dispense three hundred. Her second claim builds upon the false premise of the first to conclude that software designed to detect plagiarism has become an arbitrary guardian of “textual purity” at the expense of all these more modern theories of authorship (emphasis on theories, mind). At least, that is what I think it means. The phrasing is so convoluted that I have my doubts that one can reasonably discover any meaning. Nevertheless, this overture leads to an even greater leap of logic on the next page.
In a nod to the turbulent period at the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth centuries – or the birth of modernism – Howard marshals all her metaphors and allusions to attempt to spin her “mess” (flap): mechanized plagiarism in the twenty-first century and the postmodern attempt to free authorship from cultural arbitrariness (all the while making it even more arbitrary as they go along) becomes a power struggle between the old guard (regime) of “originary” and “proprietary” authorship and the liberators of academic cheats (my interpretation) (131). Foucault’s panopticon might indeed be an accurate description of the way prison systems use surveillance to minimize the number of guards necessary to guard prisoners, or the way totalitarian states turn individuals into a fearful watching herd, but it hardly equates to plagiarism-detecting software surveilling student papers; software, in fact, that in many cases only works if students are willing to submit their papers. Now if Howard wanted to analogize the NSA’s current data-mining of all our internet activities (or Orwell’s telescreen and thought police monitoring the citizens of Oceania), then she might have a case. But such silliness only undermines her claim.
Because I would have exceeded five hundred words, and your patience, I have added a second post, which represents a broader response.
In a nod to the turbulent period at the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth centuries – or the birth of modernism – Howard marshals all her metaphors and allusions to attempt to spin her “mess” (flap): mechanized plagiarism in the twenty-first century and the postmodern attempt to free authorship from cultural arbitrariness (all the while making it even more arbitrary as they go along) becomes a power struggle between the old guard (regime) of “originary” and “proprietary” authorship and the liberators of academic cheats (my interpretation) (131). Foucault’s panopticon might indeed be an accurate description of the way prison systems use surveillance to minimize the number of guards necessary to guard prisoners, or the way totalitarian states turn individuals into a fearful watching herd, but it hardly equates to plagiarism-detecting software surveilling student papers; software, in fact, that in many cases only works if students are willing to submit their papers. Now if Howard wanted to analogize the NSA’s current data-mining of all our internet activities (or Orwell’s telescreen and thought police monitoring the citizens of Oceania), then she might have a case. But such silliness only undermines her claim.
Because I would have exceeded five hundred words, and your patience, I have added a second post, which represents a broader response.
4/9/08
The Solitary Author
When I read a book I want to dive down into a world, or a consciousness, and listen to just one voice tell a story. I want to absorb just one person’s insights. I want to stay, listening to that story, and that voice, without interruption, for more than two minutes at a time. The thought of that one voice interrupted by a thousand others disturbs me to no end. -- Posting Titled "Lost in the Tower of Babel" from Dogpoet's blog.
Dogpoet writes the above paragraph in response to an article that claims that Web 2.0 will change authorship as we know it. New technologies allow readers to respond to author's works-in-progress. Dogpoet (hereafter, DP) sees this as a major loss. What I find especially interesting though, and I have posted this on DP's blog, is this idea of the solitary author, writing alone and uninfluenced by others.
This notion, though romantic wasn't ever really a reality. We can see this in many circumstances. First, most books aren't actually written by just one person. Editors step in at many stages in today's publication process. Similarly, writers' workshops offer writers instant feedback from up to twenty readers. And even asking a friend for her thoughts risks altering that "one voice" of the author.
On a deeper level though, we can see that the author has never really been alone. This blog post on plagiarism clearly points out the intertextual influences, known or unknown, that each writer is subject to. Bakhtin also calls attention to this interplay of ideas of words when he writes, "our speech, that is, all our utterances (including creative works), is filled with others' words" ("The Problem of Speech Genres" 89). Similarly, in "The Death of the Author," Barthes argues, "a text is made of multiple writings, drawn from many cultures and entering into mutual relations of dialogue, parody, contestation, but there is one place where this multiplicity is focused and that place is the reader, not, as was hitherto said, the author."
And, the more I read Rebecca Moore Howard's Standing in the Shadow of Giants: Plagiarists, Authors, Collaborators, the more I'm coming to understand that this (incorrect) notion of the original author, uninfluenced by those around him, is unique to our time and culture.
What does all this mean? As writers (and scholars) it means that we need to acknowledge the influence of others' words on our thoughts, actions, and words. We need to be aware that our culture, even our culture before the web, holds our hand as we write, constantly directly and reshaping that work-in-progress. If we accept this, we can embrace the true potential of the cacophony of voices in our lives and blend them to a unified, unique whole.
Dogpoet writes the above paragraph in response to an article that claims that Web 2.0 will change authorship as we know it. New technologies allow readers to respond to author's works-in-progress. Dogpoet (hereafter, DP) sees this as a major loss. What I find especially interesting though, and I have posted this on DP's blog, is this idea of the solitary author, writing alone and uninfluenced by others.
This notion, though romantic wasn't ever really a reality. We can see this in many circumstances. First, most books aren't actually written by just one person. Editors step in at many stages in today's publication process. Similarly, writers' workshops offer writers instant feedback from up to twenty readers. And even asking a friend for her thoughts risks altering that "one voice" of the author.
On a deeper level though, we can see that the author has never really been alone. This blog post on plagiarism clearly points out the intertextual influences, known or unknown, that each writer is subject to. Bakhtin also calls attention to this interplay of ideas of words when he writes, "our speech, that is, all our utterances (including creative works), is filled with others' words" ("The Problem of Speech Genres" 89). Similarly, in "The Death of the Author," Barthes argues, "a text is made of multiple writings, drawn from many cultures and entering into mutual relations of dialogue, parody, contestation, but there is one place where this multiplicity is focused and that place is the reader, not, as was hitherto said, the author."
And, the more I read Rebecca Moore Howard's Standing in the Shadow of Giants: Plagiarists, Authors, Collaborators, the more I'm coming to understand that this (incorrect) notion of the original author, uninfluenced by those around him, is unique to our time and culture.
What does all this mean? As writers (and scholars) it means that we need to acknowledge the influence of others' words on our thoughts, actions, and words. We need to be aware that our culture, even our culture before the web, holds our hand as we write, constantly directly and reshaping that work-in-progress. If we accept this, we can embrace the true potential of the cacophony of voices in our lives and blend them to a unified, unique whole.
While researching, I found this Google search page. Google Scholar. Amusing in light of our reading...
Howard Blog Redux
annaluna2369 already mentioned the Turnitin suit on Howard's blog. I think if you look at a followup post on her expert witness report for that, you'll see some things that are agreeable. And interesting in light of how they relate to her relatively older musings in the book we're reading:
- Genre and situation matter: Turnitin "quantifies and universalizes writers' use of sources, rather than acknowledging that the acceptability of source use is governed by local conditions such as the assignment, the student's grade level, and the syllabus for the course"
- Better ways to avoid plagiarism exist than fascist policing: "There are much better ways of teaching writing pedagogy than using PDSs in general, and Turnitin.com in particular. These better ways include (a) sequenced assignments, so that students are mentored through the process of producing major papers; (b) the use of common sources to begin a writing project, so that the class can work together through the problems of source use, and then each student can branch out into his or her own research; (c) instruction in critical information literacy, so that students locate compelling, pertinent sources rather than basic documents produced immediately in a quick Google search" (and she gives plenty more too)
- "The use of [Turnitin and similar programs] casts instructors and students as adversaries and describes writing and reading as mechanical procedures of extracting and citing information"
I just find her conflation (variously) of what I would separate into plagiarism, patchwriting, and mimesis (not that I would stop there in my methodology) confusing. What is okay? What is not okay? What is natural?
- Genre and situation matter: Turnitin "quantifies and universalizes writers' use of sources, rather than acknowledging that the acceptability of source use is governed by local conditions such as the assignment, the student's grade level, and the syllabus for the course"
- Better ways to avoid plagiarism exist than fascist policing: "There are much better ways of teaching writing pedagogy than using PDSs in general, and Turnitin.com in particular. These better ways include (a) sequenced assignments, so that students are mentored through the process of producing major papers; (b) the use of common sources to begin a writing project, so that the class can work together through the problems of source use, and then each student can branch out into his or her own research; (c) instruction in critical information literacy, so that students locate compelling, pertinent sources rather than basic documents produced immediately in a quick Google search" (and she gives plenty more too)
- "The use of [Turnitin and similar programs] casts instructors and students as adversaries and describes writing and reading as mechanical procedures of extracting and citing information"
I just find her conflation (variously) of what I would separate into plagiarism, patchwriting, and mimesis (not that I would stop there in my methodology) confusing. What is okay? What is not okay? What is natural?
4/8/08
Open Source Licenses
During discussion about open sourcing, some questions regarding licenses and whether or not they effected the saved/produced work (e.g., does some coder own your text, or do you have to give it away, if it's created in their program). I guess I would call these "Resultant Works," unless someone has a better name for them.
Anyway...
- The short answer is I didn't think so, but some people are more into the open source thing than others. I am not a lawyer.
- The slightly longer short answer is: "No" for most programs that use the GPL (the most common) license. Here is a direct answer from the Free Software Foundation, regarding their GPL license. Here's a documentation license from the same group, since we're not programmers.
- The long answer is: here is a short list of licenses that can be used. Remember, these are primarily related to code.
Anyway...
Back to Page 11 - My last 2 pennies
I think the work on page 11 was properly cited. As we discussed in class, the writing may be poor; however, the student cited the source. I agree with those who believe that a conversation could take place with a student to improve the "quality of writing" or to properly paraphrase work. I don't believe that this is intentional plagiarism or that it should be treated as such. Arghhh.
And another thing. While hotly debating plagiarism last night, it seemed that there were many distinct opinions floating around addressing what Howard was believed to be advocating rather than what Howard has observed. While listening to the debate about page 11, I noticed that students who write poorly were slammed. I think that there is this elitist attitude toward students who struggle with writing. I know I've been guilty of it. It isn't just students, classmates, etc. I have found in my professional life that I have acquired a certain snobbery, because I may know how to more clearly articulate (as someone mentioned last night) what I think than someone else.
What I'm trying to say (not very clearly articulated) is that I want to constructively discuss what drives students to patchwrite rather than to toss out negative, shmarmy labels, judgements or assumptions about why students engage in this activity. As Howard states on page 23, "Understanding the excluded plagiarist and his or her moral beliefs takes a prominent place in the scholarship of plagiarism. Like the scientific model of anthropology that is now in eclipse, this approach to plagiarsm sets up a textual "Us" and "Them," in which the civilized, researching "Us" endeavors to understand the native, pagan "Them."" I think our discussion last night was leaning toward the us/them model. Please add your pennies to this posting.
And another thing. While hotly debating plagiarism last night, it seemed that there were many distinct opinions floating around addressing what Howard was believed to be advocating rather than what Howard has observed. While listening to the debate about page 11, I noticed that students who write poorly were slammed. I think that there is this elitist attitude toward students who struggle with writing. I know I've been guilty of it. It isn't just students, classmates, etc. I have found in my professional life that I have acquired a certain snobbery, because I may know how to more clearly articulate (as someone mentioned last night) what I think than someone else.
What I'm trying to say (not very clearly articulated) is that I want to constructively discuss what drives students to patchwrite rather than to toss out negative, shmarmy labels, judgements or assumptions about why students engage in this activity. As Howard states on page 23, "Understanding the excluded plagiarist and his or her moral beliefs takes a prominent place in the scholarship of plagiarism. Like the scientific model of anthropology that is now in eclipse, this approach to plagiarsm sets up a textual "Us" and "Them," in which the civilized, researching "Us" endeavors to understand the native, pagan "Them."" I think our discussion last night was leaning toward the us/them model. Please add your pennies to this posting.
4/7/08
plagiarism, American style...
I looked at OWL /Purdue for a take on the topic of plagiarism and found this interesting:
"The key to avoiding plagiarism is to make sure you give credit where it is due. This may be credit for something somebody said, wrote, emailed, drew, or implied. Many professional organizations, including the Modern Language Association and the American Psychological Association, have lengthy guidelines for citing sources. However, students are often so busy trying to learn the rules of MLA format and style or APA format and style that they sometimes forget exactly what needs to be credited. Here, then, is a brief list of what needs to be credited or documented:
· Words or ideas presented in a magazine, book, newspaper, song, TV program, movie, Web page, computer program, letter, advertisement, or any other medium
· Information you gain through interviewing or conversing with another person, face to face, over the phone, or in writing
· When you copy the exact words or a unique phrase
· When you reprint any diagrams, illustrations, charts, pictures, or other visual materials
· When you reuse or repost any electronically-available media, including images, audio, video, or other media
Bottom line, document any words, ideas, or other productions that originate somewhere outside of you."
"The key to avoiding plagiarism is to make sure you give credit where it is due. This may be credit for something somebody said, wrote, emailed, drew, or implied. Many professional organizations, including the Modern Language Association and the American Psychological Association, have lengthy guidelines for citing sources. However, students are often so busy trying to learn the rules of MLA format and style or APA format and style that they sometimes forget exactly what needs to be credited. Here, then, is a brief list of what needs to be credited or documented:
· Words or ideas presented in a magazine, book, newspaper, song, TV program, movie, Web page, computer program, letter, advertisement, or any other medium
· Information you gain through interviewing or conversing with another person, face to face, over the phone, or in writing
· When you copy the exact words or a unique phrase
· When you reprint any diagrams, illustrations, charts, pictures, or other visual materials
· When you reuse or repost any electronically-available media, including images, audio, video, or other media
Bottom line, document any words, ideas, or other productions that originate somewhere outside of you."
Government act on File Sharing
I just stumbled across this article that focuses specifically on the relationship between colleges and the MPAA. It seems especially pertinent given our discussion in class last week. I'm still wondering why so much of the focus falls on colleges.
4/6/08
Malvolio Reading Response
My thoughts about Howard’s book are a little helter-skelter at the moment. I’ve been struggling all weekend with how to approach my response, where to focus, what to address. My sense of it is that I’m juggling two primary reactions: on the one hand an awareness that I should be open-minded and willing to entertain radical ideas, however uncomfortable or angry they make me, and on the other hand an instinctive rejection of most of the basic principles on which her theory is based. The problem is that I’ve learned to trust my instincts; I’ve been an artist and an educator long enough to have a sense of when I’m being bamboozled.
And of course I realize that in rejecting pretty much everything Howard has to say I am falling into the cunning little trap she has set for me and other writers and teachers like me. So I may as well get this out of the way now: part of the calculated effect of Howard’s book is to position anyone who disagrees with her as backward, unenlightened, and an enemy to progressive composition theory (she has, elsewhere, called herself a “martyr”—a deeply disturbing characterization—and her opponents “jerks” [see her paper “Public Intellectual, or Public Object? Mass Media Representations of Plagiarism Scholarship” at http://wrt-howard.syr.edu/Papers/CCCC2003.caucus.htm]). Walter Jacobson has, not surprisingly, already articulated a response that echoes my own, but let’s see if I can articulate why I think Howard’s attempt to reconsider writing and composition pedagogy within a context informed by the open-source or remix culture of the Internet is both false and dangerous. For while it’s clear that her zeal for radical revision of our understandings of such concepts as mimesis, collaboration, authorship, and plagiarism comes from an honest desire to improve the teaching of composition and promote genuine learning, it’s also clear to me that this right idea has led her very far astray.
Howard seeks to confound utterly our understanding of such common—and commonly understood—concepts as authorship, text, collaboration, and plagiarism. This, she tells us, is born out of a personal teaching experience that led her to question her own definitions of all these concepts, and especially plagiarism. And she found her answers in postmodern literary theory, specifically the works of Foucault and Barthes. The first part of the book is devoted to laying out the various problems in defining plagiarism; here Howard is largely focused on the idea of what she calls patchwriting: “copying from a source text and then deleting some words, altering grammatical structures, or plugging in one synonym for another” (xvii). The entire book is, in some sense, an explication of her belief that this particular practice is not only common among students but, in fact, the way all writers always compose; thus the very notion of plagiarism requires some radical reconsideration. Her concern with the criminalization of patchwriting particularly is connected to what she describes as a tension between dichotomous pedagogical models she refers to as “gatekeeping” and “facilitating”—the gatekeepers being invested in weeding out those deemed unworthy of admission into the sacred halls of academe, the facilitators being those more interested in helping all students succeed. At the very least Howard is advocating that patchwriting specifically be “decriminalized” so that we begin to recognize the practice as a kind of learning in which students engage and actively collaborate with the texts in question.
It all comes across as very bold and revolutionary, but the problem with this deliberately carnivalesque approach to composition is its very insistence on its own radical nature. Howard is clearly aware that her revisions—indeed, reversals—of previously received concepts of authorship and pedagogical technique are going to be discomfiting on some level to many of us, but she insists that those reversals are legitimate because they reflect the ways writers—both student and professional—actually compose. I would like to suggest instead that the reason they make so many of us so uncomfortable (if not downright angry) is our sense that they seem so radical and opposed to our actual methods of constructing texts because, in fact, they are. She asserts repeatedly that “all writing is collaborative” (41) and that “[patchwriting] is something that all academic writers do” (xviii), but she is unable to marshall any actual evidence to support these assertions. And I’m fairly certain that that’s because there can be no evidence to support such wild claims—short of surveying “all academic writers” or reading “all writing.” She even admits that she has so far failed to convince her own students. And though she places the blame for this failure squarely on the deeply entrenched cultural paradigms against which she so assiduously works, I think it’s far more likely that her students don’t accept it because it just ain’t so.
The major problem that I have with Howard’s book is not her clearly poststructuralist attitude toward authorship or her (to me) deeply troubling notions of plagiarism—she is certainly entitled to her own point of view. No, what most concerns me is that, by insisting that patchwriting is not only our default compositional method but one that should be actively encouraged in students, what she advocates and perpetuates is, more usually, just bad writing (context is of course important; as many here have pointed out, patchwriting can be perfectly appropriate in certain professional circumstances, though I contend that the composition classroom is not necessarily one of them). Even if the average student will instinctively patchwrite when asked to integrate sources into her writing, my sense of it is that it has very little to do with creative engagement with the text and a whole lot to do with simplicity and convenience. The best of my students have no trouble recognizing that patchwriting is at least bad writing, and at most not writing at all. I don’t mean to be cynical, but at the college level, how many of our students who patchwrite do so because it affords them a fast and simple way of getting through what they see as an unpleasant chore? And yes, it is absolutely a failure of pedagogy when our students think of their writing as something unpleasant to be avoided. But I would suggest that instead of enabling bad writing habits we should try to find genuine ways to get them to engage not only with the texts to which they respond (or, if you prefer, with which they collaborate), but also with the texts they produce as independent, autonomous authors. Denying that there is such a thing as authorship strikes me as counterproductive. And insisting that all learning is constructed by the learner only accelerates our already rapid decline into irrelevance.
Internet culture—remix culture, open-source culture, whatever we want to call it—has almost certainly helped foster the perception among some students that patchwriting is an acceptable way of engaging with texts. But it seems specious to me to suggest that because a method is valid in one context it is also valid in others. The concept of collaboration is certainly useful, but Howard’s appropriation of it (as well as her use of the related concept of mimesis) is highly problematic. For any theater artist—to use my own discipline as an example—collaboration implies reciprocity. Directors, actors, designers, playwrights, even audiences, all collaborate in two ways: by working with texts and by working with each other to create works of theatrical art. There is a silent agreement that exists between playwrights and their interpreters: the playwright writes specifically so that other artists can interpret her work. In other words, no matter how dictatorial a particular playwright might be (consider, for instance, George Bernard Shaw or Samuel Beckett), it is understood that the interpreters who will be responsible for performing the text are not the enemy but actual collaborators—Julius Caesar has been staged literally countless times since it first appeared in 1599, and each of those stagings represents a collaboration with the text and with Shakespeare and his collaborators (the performers and printers). Similarly, every published edition—publication being a kind of performance—is also a collaboration between an editor and the text. The idea of collaboration is thus written into the text. It is a fundamental aspect of the very act of playwrighting, of creating dramatic texts that are meant to be performed and interpreted by other artists.
But Howard isn’t speaking of theatrical collaboration. Nor, unlike Aristotle, is she speaking of theatrical mimesis. She is in effect applying concepts that were born in the theater (and, in the case of collaboration, other arts) to the composition classroom—an irony, it may be argued, since she seems to me to be in the process of denying some of the very qualities that make writing a fine art as well as a craft.
At this point I feel the need to return to a question I seem to remember articulating earlier in the semester: what is it that so offends (some of) us about the idea of what Howard continually refers to as the “autonomous author”? She continually insists that such a concept—the concept against which Barthes and Foucault also labor—does not reflect the actual ways all writers actually write. Yet the autonomous author has been with us since Homer, and most of us who write have no problem with the concept until someone like Foucault—or Howard—suggests that it is problematic. My opinions of the so-called “theories” of Foucault and Barthes are well-recorded so I won’t rehearse them here. It is enough to say that any theory of authorship or composition that relies on either of them has serious credibility issues for someone like me.
4/5/08
Professional Patchwriting Pays
Like annaluna, I too am a patchwriter. In fact, I am a professional patchwriter. As a grant writer, I am expected to patchwrite using the language provided by the very funders who read my proposals. In my field, it is imperative that proposals reflect the language used in funders' Request for Proposals (RFPs). In fact, it is standard practice to lift the funders' language out of the RFP (without citation) in order to demonstrate that a project is meeting the funders' purpose and goals. Grant evaluators look for that language as a sign of understanding and common mission. Furthermore, the ability and willingness to patchwrite is a signal of a grant writer's experience and expertise--a badge of the elite (or Howard's "liberal culture ideology"), if you will. In effect, I get paid to patchwrite and my employer benefits through awarded grant funds. I know this is institutional authorship rather than individual authorship, but I'm curious if any of the comp instructors in our class are willing to tell your students they can do this for a living?
Reading Response - Howard
Standing in the Shadow of Giants begins with Rebecca More Howard’s crusade against plagiarism in the ‘80s. The specific form of plagiarism she has focused on is patchwriting which she defines as “copying from a source text and then deleting some words, altering grammatical structures, or plugging in one synonym for another” (xvii). To her surprise, however, she found that most students she discussed this form of plagiarism with did not know that what they were doing was plagiarism. Howard ultimately questioned the transgression herself until she came to the conclusion that patchwriting is “the heart of writing” (7). Building on Quintilian’s theory and the work of Roland Barthes, Howard says that all writing is to some extent collaborative and built on the works of earlier writers. There is no individual author in the sense that patchwriting is a "writer-text collaboration based on mimesis" (34). Here she also looks at the works of Foucault and Woodmansee to examine our modern conception of the author.
One of the key quotes from the second part of Standing in the Shadow of Giants is "the autonomous, originary author derives from economic and technological change and participates in maintaining hierarchical social relations that are potentially threatened by those changes” (57). It is this idea of authorship that makes patchwriting seem negative or criminal and prohibits "a positive pedagogy for patchwriting." She goes on to describe how this idea of authorship is, in fact, new and cites some of the reading we did earlier in the semester on authorship. Howard also gives us "four properties" of authorship: "autonomy, originality, proprietorship, and morality" (58).
Morality, of course, refers to our need to trust the author has created his own text and not stolen anyone else's work. Proprietorship is the heart of copyright law--it is the basis for intellectual property: that the author owns that idea or work as much as she might own a plot of land. To own that work, however, it must be original. Originality is probably the most debatable among the four properties Howard gives us. The definition or intent is obvious, but determining to what level a work must be original is difficult to do. Howard summarizes autonomy as the idea that "the writer, from the Cartesian point of view, can act autonomously to apprehend and express ideas that are unmediated by social discourse" (80). We've seen the implications of these properties of modern authorship throughout the course in the rhetoric of copyright infringement cases and the arguments by the RIAA and the MPAA, the chief proprietors.
There are problems with plagiarism and how it is regulated and defined in the classroom. Howard talks about how on exams students are expected to (and rewarded for) answer questions based on ideas taught in class that, in terms of proprietorship belong to a different authors, without actually citing them. Even the guidelines used to define plagiarism vary from institution to institution and are considered "a local affair" (21). In many cases, plagiarism is unintentional. In these cases, Howard advocates "[teaching] citation conventions" (110). Intentional plagiarism should be punished. But, as Howard says, in patchwriting, intentional plagiarism is not always the case. Sometimes it is used by writers to help them better "understand what they are reading" and in this case can be used as "a positive learning strategy" (110, 111).
One of the key quotes from the second part of Standing in the Shadow of Giants is "the autonomous, originary author derives from economic and technological change and participates in maintaining hierarchical social relations that are potentially threatened by those changes” (57). It is this idea of authorship that makes patchwriting seem negative or criminal and prohibits "a positive pedagogy for patchwriting." She goes on to describe how this idea of authorship is, in fact, new and cites some of the reading we did earlier in the semester on authorship. Howard also gives us "four properties" of authorship: "autonomy, originality, proprietorship, and morality" (58).
Morality, of course, refers to our need to trust the author has created his own text and not stolen anyone else's work. Proprietorship is the heart of copyright law--it is the basis for intellectual property: that the author owns that idea or work as much as she might own a plot of land. To own that work, however, it must be original. Originality is probably the most debatable among the four properties Howard gives us. The definition or intent is obvious, but determining to what level a work must be original is difficult to do. Howard summarizes autonomy as the idea that "the writer, from the Cartesian point of view, can act autonomously to apprehend and express ideas that are unmediated by social discourse" (80). We've seen the implications of these properties of modern authorship throughout the course in the rhetoric of copyright infringement cases and the arguments by the RIAA and the MPAA, the chief proprietors.
There are problems with plagiarism and how it is regulated and defined in the classroom. Howard talks about how on exams students are expected to (and rewarded for) answer questions based on ideas taught in class that, in terms of proprietorship belong to a different authors, without actually citing them. Even the guidelines used to define plagiarism vary from institution to institution and are considered "a local affair" (21). In many cases, plagiarism is unintentional. In these cases, Howard advocates "[teaching] citation conventions" (110). Intentional plagiarism should be punished. But, as Howard says, in patchwriting, intentional plagiarism is not always the case. Sometimes it is used by writers to help them better "understand what they are reading" and in this case can be used as "a positive learning strategy" (110, 111).
4/4/08
The McLean Suit
I took a look at Rebecca Moore Howard's blog. She was an expert witness in the McLean suit brought by two students against Turnitin. I agree with lynn168's post and also wonder how anyone can ethically and effectively use SafeAssign or Turnitin? Teachers would be casting students as would-be criminals rather than inexperienced writers. It seems these programs police plagiarism, but are also hobbling the learning process, the "writer-text collaborative experience" as Howard describes.
How can these programs effectively catch a student cheating by using percentages? Using a virtual vault to house thousands of student papers and anteing up rhetorical coincidences through percentages to establish guilt seems ominous. Here's another blog I checked out in reference to the McLean suit. It is a virtual community of responses to the case.
Also, in affirmative response to erenghard's post, I don't get page 11 of Howard's book. I don't understand how the plagiarized paragraph is plagiarism. I showed the page in question to my professor that I G.A. for and she couldn't see it either. Anyone have a clue?
How can these programs effectively catch a student cheating by using percentages? Using a virtual vault to house thousands of student papers and anteing up rhetorical coincidences through percentages to establish guilt seems ominous. Here's another blog I checked out in reference to the McLean suit. It is a virtual community of responses to the case.
Also, in affirmative response to erenghard's post, I don't get page 11 of Howard's book. I don't understand how the plagiarized paragraph is plagiarism. I showed the page in question to my professor that I G.A. for and she couldn't see it either. Anyone have a clue?
4/3/08
NIU Teaches Us about Academic Integrity
Here is a link to teach students and faculty about academic integrity. http://www.niu.edu/ai/students/
4/2/08
Confession
Hi. My name is Annaluna2369 and I am a “patchwriter.” (cue the laugh track)
So, reading the first bit of Howard’s book, I was surprised that I, Ms. Integrity, would be branded a cheater, a criminal, a…plagiarist! While reading, I frantically tried to recall every piece of writing I have ever done – did I unknowingly do the unspeakable?
I was particularly interested in the passage on page 7 of Howard’s book in the section on patchwriting as learning,
“…students’ patchwriting is often a move toward membership in a discourse community, a means of learning unfamiliar language and ideas. Far from indicating a lack of respect for a source text, their patchwriting is a gesture of reverence.”
And
“…To join this conversation, the patchwriter employs the language of the target community.”
For someone like me, who is struggling to assimilate into grad school, first year, I have this anxiety about contributing original work to the collective pool, when I’m still trying to learn how to swim. I don't mean copying and pasting Foucault into a paper, but how do I write something new? How do I join the conversation?
Now, I wonder (I’m changing topics). Can someone expand a little on “liberal culture ideology” and “social-democratic rhetoric”? I could Google it, but it would be great to hear from others what they know about it and, especially for those who are teaching right now, how it applies in your classroom.
So, reading the first bit of Howard’s book, I was surprised that I, Ms. Integrity, would be branded a cheater, a criminal, a…plagiarist! While reading, I frantically tried to recall every piece of writing I have ever done – did I unknowingly do the unspeakable?
I was particularly interested in the passage on page 7 of Howard’s book in the section on patchwriting as learning,
“…students’ patchwriting is often a move toward membership in a discourse community, a means of learning unfamiliar language and ideas. Far from indicating a lack of respect for a source text, their patchwriting is a gesture of reverence.”
And
“…To join this conversation, the patchwriter employs the language of the target community.”
For someone like me, who is struggling to assimilate into grad school, first year, I have this anxiety about contributing original work to the collective pool, when I’m still trying to learn how to swim. I don't mean copying and pasting Foucault into a paper, but how do I write something new? How do I join the conversation?
Now, I wonder (I’m changing topics). Can someone expand a little on “liberal culture ideology” and “social-democratic rhetoric”? I could Google it, but it would be great to hear from others what they know about it and, especially for those who are teaching right now, how it applies in your classroom.
4/1/08
NIU Copyright Climate
As we were talking last night about universities being likely sites for change in the copyright debate, I decided to look further into the "climate" on our campus regarding copyright issues. Here are a couple of recent events that might be of interest:
NIU compliance with the RIAA. In 2007, the RIAA sent pre-litigation letters to more than 25 students who were sharing (not just downloading, but also uploading) copyrighted music files. Here is the standard procedure if a student is caught violating copyright laws (taken from the Copyright and File Sharing Facts page on the ITS website:
NIU adoption of SafeAssign as a plagiarism detection tool. It is a searchable database, much like Turnitin.com, that is built into the Blackboard system. Of note is the "Originality Report" produced for instructors, offering an analysis of a student's paper: see Sample Originality Report. Do you use this tool in your classes? I'm wondering how this tool has been presented to instructors, especially to those teaching first-year composition.
NIU compliance with the RIAA. In 2007, the RIAA sent pre-litigation letters to more than 25 students who were sharing (not just downloading, but also uploading) copyrighted music files. Here is the standard procedure if a student is caught violating copyright laws (taken from the Copyright and File Sharing Facts page on the ITS website:
- "Per the DMCA requirements, the network connection for the device identified is disabled immediately.
- An e-mail notifies you of the alleged violation or notice.
- You must visit the Restech Helpdesk to disable the alleged violating software.
- You must meet with the NIU Abuse Investigator and sign documentation acknowledging your understanding of NIU's Acceptable Use Policy and the Student Code of Conduct."
NIU adoption of SafeAssign as a plagiarism detection tool. It is a searchable database, much like Turnitin.com, that is built into the Blackboard system. Of note is the "Originality Report" produced for instructors, offering an analysis of a student's paper: see Sample Originality Report. Do you use this tool in your classes? I'm wondering how this tool has been presented to instructors, especially to those teaching first-year composition.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)