Post 8 "The Future of Literacy"

I have had access to a computer ever since 1995 and early on I was a little unsure on how to use it. I started by playing simple games such as solitaire but as soon as I became more computer literate I advanced to more intricate games such as Battlefield which was very popular during the late 90's. My father is in information technology, so he really inspired me to learn more about computers. I then began using my computer a lot more often and I became very computer savvy. Then my school began to incorporated  mandatory computer classes for all students. This is where I began to understand the possibilities behind a computer. I then began using a computer not just for games but also for learning. With any information just a click away it was easy for me to use the computer for homework that was difficult.

In High School I had taken a computer networking class and this class helped me understand a lot more about computers. I figured out what they where made of, how they worked, and how computers connected to each other to create a network. It then became easier for me to use my computer for things such as Facebook, games, and Adobe Photoshop.

My class experience outside of my computer classes didn't really use computers. The other classes such as History and English used text books. This was very bland and almost out of date to me. When I went home instead of using the book; I would find myself using the Internet for most of the questions. At a young age I became very computer literate thus helping me to answer questions from homework and to learn more about certain subjects.

Post 7 "Sponsors of Literacy"

I feel like Brandt would agree that the sponsor always has something to gain from their sponsorship. She backs this argument by explaining "Loaning land, money, protection, and other favors allowed the politically powerful to extend their influence and justify their exploitation of clients. Clients traded their labor and deference for access to opportunities for themselves or their children and for leverage needed to improve their social standing." This is basically saying that a sponsor offers something in value to someone. This person who is usually in a lower socioeconomic status then the sponsor, uses this item of value to to trade their labor to achieve a better social standing. I feel like Brandt would agree that the sponsor always has something to gain in a sponsorship because why else would you want to be a sponsor at all.

A good example of this would be some employers will supply the money for an obese employee to get a medical procedure called gastric bypass surgery. This would give the employer a more productive worker and the employee get to be a healthier person and a boost in self confidence.

In my life some examples for sponsorship would be my parents. They have invested money in me to get good grades, graduate college, and then get a good job. The benefit to them would be the fact that they don't have to take care of me anymore.

Reflection Essay

I have used Wikipedia so many times throughout my life and I am quite surprised that is had taken me this long to start a Wikipedia account. I had always used Wikipedia to clear something up for class, I would refer to it as as starting point for my research. I was aware that anyone could edit these Wikipedia articles, thus why so many teachers disapprove Wikipedia as a good source. I believe this notion to be false because after going through the process of actually editing a Wikipedia article, I now realize that it takes a lot more to edit an article. It's almost like working on a research paper. You have to gather legitimate sources and bring them together to create an academic article.

These constructs that the Wikipedia community fallows is what makes Wikipedia so useful. The constructs would include writing in third person and keeping any personal bias out of the article. In James Porter's article he argues "The approved channels (referring to how a group of people in a discourse community communicate) we can call them "forums". Each forum has a distinct history and rules governing appropriateness to which members are obliged to adhere." This meaning that a discourse community such as a Wikipedia article there are certain rules that a person should fallow in order to create a proper article. These rules are what set Wikipedia apart from all other encyclopedic websites. The rules help to create uniformity across all of the articles Wikipedia has. Meaning that all the articles will be roughly the same format even though different people write the articles. This also helps prevent people who are not qualified to make an edit that does not make sense, therefore the articles will be more academic. Thus making Wikipedia a better and more legitimate source.

When writing my Wikipedia article I had to think to myself who would be reading this and how would they expect to see this article written. This effected how I worded my article and one example would be at one point  I had to write about how the Vortex (a ride at Kings Island) is celebrating it's 25th anniversary during the 2012 season; but I had to word this in the past tense because it this type of information would be apart of the history of the ride. History therefore meaning the past. When writing a Wikipedia edit you have to think to yourself if I where on Wikipedia reading this article what would it sounds like. This will help make adjustments to stay within those constraints of Wikipedia.

Wikipedia can help us understand more about the professional constraints put on writing. While writing my Wikipedia article I found myself learning a lot about how to write in a more professional manner. At the start it was rather difficult to start my article. In order to understand the constraints Wikipedia puts on their articles I had to read through many articles. Just reading the articles helped me understand the way  your suppose to write on Wikipedia. This would include writing in a third person and to leave the self out. Understanding the constraints in a discourse community will help young people become a better writer in their chosen fields.

My experience with making a Wikipedia edit was great. It was kind of fun to learn how to make a Wikipedia edit. As I said earlier this was my first time making an edit and I would say that would like to do it again in my free time. Especially if you pick an article that you are interested in, you will be able to enjoy the edit thus making it a useful experience. I am so glad that I did this edit because not only was a fun and useful exercise it is also a great way to understand Wikipedia. Before I only had a dogmatic view of Wikipedia after doing the edit I understand how much effort it takes to create a proper/professional article. This makes me realize that Wikipedia still can be used as good reference.  

1)  Exigence- Is an issue or need that can be addressed through conversation or writing. Grant-Davie brings up the idea of cause and effect, meaning that there is a reason for the exigence and because of this there is an effect. An example would be receiving bad service at a restaurant.
2)  Rhetor- Would be the person or persons involved in the exigence. Grant-Davie says that sometimes the rhetor brings with him an ethos that (depending on the situation) could alter the outcome of the exigence. Sticking to the example above, the rhetors' of this situation would be the customer and the person who caused the bad service.
3)  Audience- The people that are not involved in the exigence, rather they are witnesses to it. The audience members can become rhetors but it always depends on the situation. An example would be a baseball team listening to their coach give a pregame speech.
4)  Constraints- Are restraints in language that occur in certain situations. Using the restaurant example, in order to resolve the exigence the waiter needs to compensate the customer for the wrongdoings because the customer is always right.  

Post 5 "Shitty First Drafts"

Lamott's argument is that all writers write a bad first draft, and that the easiest way to start writing is to create an awful first draft. Lamott explains by saying that writers don't pump out writing like most people think writers get the mental block to and have to look for inspiration somewhere. What Lamott suggests is the idea of writing a long and dreadfully written first draft. Then after that is written you go back and look for inspiration within the almost childish writing.
Lamott's ideas do not support the same style of writing for the Wikipedia articles. This is because Lamott is a column writer and writes fiction. This kind of writing is different then Wikipedia articles because these articles are factual and the ideas come from references.

"All Writing is Autobiography"

Murray is asking us to reconsider the construct that writing is without bias. Murray continues saying that "All my writing-and yours-is autobiographical." (57) this meaning that everyone writes in a there own way and includes there own childhood memories within their writing. Murray quotes Graham Greene who states that the first 20 years are most important for a writer (58). The first 20 years oh your life is where you sculpt your writing style and this style would include childhood memories that would show through the writing to the reader. This is what Murray means by autobiography. Even if the piece is fiction there will still be traces of the authors childhood memories.

Post 3: "Intertextuality and the Discourse Community"

Porter explains that writing is no longer individualistic, infect it has become rather difficult to write something that is truly ones own work. Within all writing works there is always going to be some form of intertextuality. For example Porter brings up the Declaration of Independence written by Thomas Jefferson, this the United States most importance historical document is not completely written by Jefferson. Jefferson uses text from all sorts works and brings them all together to form the document we know today. If the Declaration was truly written by Jefferson then it most likely would not be as important as it is today. Further more if we imagine writing as individual then most writings won't fit within a discourse community, but we do not want to go overboard and say there is no such thing as plagiarism. We need to find a happy medium between these to extremes only then can we advance in writing. 

On Another note I feel like some of the reason for this to be brought up in the 21st century is the invention of the internet. The internet has made it easy for writer to publicly view many more writing compositions. Therefore I feel it is way easy for a writer to use intertextuality within their own composition, this does not mean that these composition are necessarily bad. We as writers need to be aware of intertextuality and to not plagiarize.