Digital Diversity

For Blog Assignment #10, the idea was to use the incredibly detailed and nuanced descriptions of Internet activism and Internet-enabled political actions in the Kahn & Kellner article as a foundation for discussing another, recent, example of the same (e.g. something not mentioned by them but in the same spirit). I get the sense that many of you perhaps just read the conclusion and not all of the stuff before it, because some examples lacked a real understanding of “technopolitics” and “oppositional media.”

However, some particularly good examples of answers to the prompt include but are not limited to blog posts by:

• Dena L.
• Derek N.
• Kris M.
• Maurice S.
• Neil F.

For the Extra Credit Opportunity #2, the assignment was to summarize the Holcomb, Bakelaaar, and Zizzamia article, “The Internet in the Aftermath of the World Trade Center Attack”, then go on to describe and explain another situation (e.g. one not discussed in their essay) that would support the argument the authors make in their essay. In other words, summarize and identify, then synthesize and exemplify.

Some particularly good examples of responses to the assignment include but are not limited to blog posts by:

• Dan A.
• Michelle A.
• Sara F.
• Saundra B.

Also, let’s continue to keep a good thought for Brandon, and hey, James is going to be a daddy!

You all should have received an e-mail about this, but due to attrition and the ability to move people around, there are no scheduled presenters for Tuesday, April 6th.

Take that time to work on your own projects. We will not have class on April 6th.

Since I teach at 1:25 as well, I will be on campus. If you think you want to talk to me, tell me well in advance of Tuesday and I will come to campus before 1:25.

On Monday late afternoon to evening I commented on all the extended proposals that had been posted. A number of people did not post blog #9, so I had no opportunity for comments (and you didn’t get credit, obviously).

Anyone who posts a blog #9 and wants comments should send me an e-mail alerting me of its presence.

Now you can experience some screenshots of the glory that was (not) Bob.

From the article….

“What’s the most efficient way to deride a technology product as a stinker and/or a flop? Easy: Compare it to Microsoft Bob. Bring up the infamous Windows 3.1 front-end for computing newbies–officially released fifteen years ago this week, on March 31st, 1995–and you need say no more. Everything from OS X to Twitter to Google Wave to (inevitably) Windows Vista has gotten the treatment.

Bob’s pervasiveness as an insult long ago transcended its brief period of prominence as a product. By now, it’s unlikely that the vast majority of people who use it as shorthand for ‘embarrassing tech failure’ ever actually used it–any more than the average person who cracks jokes about the Ford Edsel has spent time behind the wheel of one.”

You can read more. I can easily see this being of use to some of your final projects.

Per usual, late Monday afternoon is when I will comment on Blog Post #9, the extended proposal.

I have glanced at all of them, and notice a distinct lack of depth as well as completion of the core elements of the assignment as indicated in the assignment sheet. Obviously you will not get full points in that situation. More importantly, lack of depth or providing full annotation of your sources severely limits my ability to help you produce and support your argument and your research project as a whole.

I won’t notice if you go in and update your blog before late afternoon today.

On a related note, which will be confirmed and supported by other faculty, in a Tier III course such as this, formal writing and research conventions are assumed to used (and what those are, understood) when the assignment calls for it (e.g. the mid-term and the final paper). As one of a small number of faculty evaluators of the WSU Junior Writing Portfolio, I am well aware of those conventions and the standards to which I should be holding you all in this course. I cannot fill in all individual knowledge gaps where they exist, with regards to writing and research conventions at this level of work. But I can, and will, hold you to the standards WSU expects in a Tier III course.

WSU has a Writing Center, the library has numerous writers’ resource handbooks, and I have provided links to examples of the minimal standards of work. If you choose not to exploit those opportunities, that is your choice.

Class was taken up in part by group work; the goal of the group work was to provide a reminder of the framework necessary for evaluating and working with primary sources. The Taylor article was a good example to use because it was a relatively simple overview of some of the ways in which hackers are portrayed. Your goal was to extend his observations and add thickness or richness to the question “why” (with regards to his observations).

Each group went through four steps in working with the source text: summarize his argument (in the section assigned to your group), summarize an example that he uses (to ensure that you understand the connection he is making), provide an example of your own that goes along with the argument that he is making (to further apply your understanding of what he is saying to something outside of the text), and then finally make some sort of argument as to why the representation exists in the manner it does. For the latter, in some instances Taylor himself said why, and your goal was to carry that further and to connect it to the previous ten weeks of course material. It is that process that goes along with what you should be doing with sources you use in your own work, in support of some clear, concise, specific, and unique argument that you are making.

Here’s a roundup of all the posts from people who wrote something for Ada Lovelace Day. If you posted something, you got some manner of extra credit—1 or 2 points or somewhere in-between.

I wrote for Ada Lovelace Day too, and so did a few people I know:

• my ALD 2010 post on Bethany Nowviskie
• my ALD 2009 post on Martha Nell Smith
• Bethany Nowviskie on Leah Buechley
• Audrey Watters on Donna Haraway
• Amanda Watson on a bunch of people

Now on to you all….

• Adriana N. on Kaliya Hamlin
• Brent R. on Heather Armstrong
• Corrinda L. on Grace Murray Hopper
• Dan A. on the Frag Dolls
• Jennica W. on Marie Curie
• Kaitlin C. on Sherry Turkle
• Kris M. on Gina Trapani
• Lee K. on Getrude Elion
• Lorena S. on Rebecca Boone
• Mike P. on Marie Curie
• Nancy R. on Deanna Lomax
• Sara F. on Sherry Turkle
• Sheila N. on Leah Culver
• Spencer T. on Patricia Billings

Welcome back from break!

I had a few things to hand out today. First, I provided some additional/extended information on the final project presentation (PDF). Next, I handed out the extra credit blog assignments (PDF), of which the first one (of four) is DUE TODAY because it is tied to a specific event. “Today” means before midnight and the day turns over to the 25th.

Finally, I mentioned that we are not having class on Thursday, April 1 (it’s not a joke) because I will be out of town. I guess since I live in Pullman I’m always out of town, but I mean I won’t be in Richland. Or Pullman, either. Whatever. We’re not having class on Thursday, April 1.

I also reminded anyone who wanted to talk about their proposals before the extended proposal plus annotated bibliography is due on Friday at 5pm, to either see me after class (and we stopped class a bit early to accommodate that, and there was a line!) or to e-mail me, or to work it out on their blogs and e-mail me to look at it. I’ve probably talked to a good 30% of you, which is good and I’m glad (saw a few more lightbulbs pop up), but the other 70%…if you’re unsure of things, ask specific questions and I can help you. I will not give you an argument, but I can continue to ask the questions that will lead you toward making your argument [note: being able to come up with your argument is the biggest part of demonstrating mastery of the subjects, so obviously I can't just hand it to you!]

Because of this administrative stuff we only talked briefly about Sassen’s argument in “Digital Networks and the State”—and if you want to revisit what I was talking about with the .ly domain, here’s something brief and interesting by Rogers Cadenhead “Bit.ly Builds Business on Libya Domain”.

On Thursday we will circle back to Jordan’s “Technopower” article and discuss it more specifically and in relation to the Taylor reading for that day, “Hackers – Cyberpunks or Microserfs?”

I am currently grading midterms. In my comments I will point you all to this post, which contains links to useful handouts for writing essays. Since this is a 400-level class you are expected to know all of this information already, so consider it a quick way to get up to speed if you are a bit behind on the info.

Everyone would be wise to at least glance at these handouts before or during the writing process of your final projects. The handouts are brief, but chock full of good information.

• college writing
• arguments
• introductions
• theses
• quotations
• conclusions

Introductions and conclusions are killer for everyone. A good strategy is to write a skeletal intro and conclusion, focus the majority of your energy on the body of your work, and then circle back and fix up your intro and conclusion. And remember, when it comes to your final projects, I am happy to look at early drafts.

For people who want to see what a good start proposal looks like, you can see the following classmates’ posts (including my comments on them, leading them forward).

In alphabetical order:

• Derek N.
• Mark B.
• Neil F.
• Sheila N.

I will note that in two of these four examples, the student had at least one discussion with me, if not more, and has been clarifying their topic over time. Hopefully these give the rest of you an idea of the difference between summary and analysis, as well as what a proposal generally should look like (although blog #9 should be longer, more detailed, and include annotated citations).