-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I will agree word processing devices from typewriting to digital writing (like Microsoft Word) has come long way from it’s humble beginnings. It’s been a great improvement that allows a greater variety of capabilities and less difficulty in the end. I also agree that Wikipedia is not the most dependable source of information as it is crowd-sourced where individuals or groups alter information for better or worse.
Personally, however, do not feel confident with using code-encrypting programs (like Sublime Text editor) despite seeing the uses for it. For example, some of the code that is seen can be confusing without prior knowledge of their meanings or abbreviations that altering these codes, markup, prose can disturb the text unexpectedly; hopefully this class can expose and teach me these functions better. -
Nhu,
Your comment that “[t]he ability to mark and track changes as we go in a document changes our perception of authorship in writing” really resonates with me. I had not done much collaborative writing until I started teaching and was exposed to Google Docs. I am looking forward to experimenting with more of the Word Processing tools that we’ve been reading about this week. I have not yet tried Sublime Text, but based on your recommendation, will try to experiment with it. One of the things that I like most about these weekly blog posts is the ability to share and learn from each other’s experiences and suggestions. Thanks for yours!
By the way, I also have never tried adding to Wikipedia (as I mentioned in one of my other responses, I have a love/hate with that site), specifically because of the fear that I would be deleting some key portion of the text (I love the graphic that you included – that is ***precisely*** my fear!), but am looking forward to playing around with it in class tonight. It is good to push ourselves to get out of our comfort zones!
-
I agree that Wikipedia still has its issues, but I believe that for the most part the site has gone through its “growing pains.” Wikipedia has been fairly thorough in its development of “checks and balances” so to speak… most of the high-traffic articles have a protected or semi-protected status that prevents much of the careless (or malicious) editing that takes place. As long as we teach students to read Wikipedia articles with a trained-eye, it can still make for a valuable tool.
-
to further elaborate, even though Wikipedia is not a very credible source, Wikipedia does hold facts that are credible due to us being able to see the citations as well as create our own searches, and finding similar facts that are seen on Wikipedia, so even though it is not credible, it is still a source that can be used to give us an idea or a brief introduction about something, yet it is always good to be mindful.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Load More
I think this is a very great research idea. Since you will be researching the issue with identifiers, will you be using a theoretical approach during this research since one of your examples was about one of the characters being identified as the “Arabian” so that cultural studies and historicism can help you with this research.