All are welcome
Panel I: Retheorizing Authorship in the 21st Century
4:30-5:10
Garrett Peck, “Authorship in the 21st Century: Digitalization and the Creative Commons Movement”
Scott Marsden, “Fictional realities: Authorship and Textual Production in the Comic Book Form”
Panel II: Medieval Women, Victorian Readers
5:15-6:00
Stacey Krause, “Female Readership, the Anchoritic Life, and the Acrene Wisse”
Cristy Thomson, “'Emotional Transportation' and Troublesome 'Brain Work': The Impact of the Gothic and Sensation Novel on The Female Reader”
Alison Hurlburt, “Household Wares: Dickens and the Periodical Consumer”
**short break**
III. Marketing Print in the 21st Century
6:00-6:30
Emily Gordon, “Christian Living or Selling Spirituality?: Negotiating commodification in recent religious publishing”
Dave Gaertner, “Guided By Serifs: The Hidden Ideology of Fonts in Western Newspapers”
III. Controversies of New Media
6:30-7:00
Thor Polukoshko, “Edit this Paper: Truth, Reliability, and Wikipedia”
Larry Perras, “‘Talk to Me’: Email, IMing, and the New Orality”
Reception
7:00-8:30
Friday, November 23, 2007
Saturday, September 29, 2007
In defence of academic alteration (i.e. vandalism)
I wholeheartedly agree with Michelle when she says “without the interventions of hackers (like Thor's students)--the content [of Wikipedia] would be surprisingly reliable; […] for some pages, Wikipedia contributors can do a better job than […] a more "expert" staff.” The idea of an online encyclopedia where anyone can contribute is what makes Wikipedia a wonderful database of pop-culture knowledge. When was Tony Danza born? What is the name of the third track from the newest Beastie Boys album? Who the hell is that woman from the Tic Tac commercials? For the most part these articles are probably fairly accurate, and if they aren’t…well, nobody is going to lose any sleep over them (except maybe Tony Danza).As Michelle said, it is probably mostly vandals who are responsible for the unreliability of Wikipedia. Of course, Wikipedia has, to some degree, a decent system of checks and balances in place—if you post something outrageously falsified it is likely going to be deleted. Now, maybe I’m just being cynical, but I think the most problematic aspect of Wikipedia is its desire for accuracy—these checks and balances which attempt to keep Wikipedia clean are the very things which invite vandalism. People know that the fact-checkers at Wikipedia are limited in their knowledge and that they can’t catch every little thing, so people try to see what they can get away with. To relate this to a Seinfeld episode (as is possible with any situation in life), Jerry tried to beat the polygraph test because there was a chance he could avoid revealing his penchant for Melrose Place.
What happens, then, when we have a website like Scholarpedia which restricts who can write articles? Higher accuracy, yes, but it also perpetuates the elitism of the academic community. I realize that Scholarpedia is just beginning, and that these things take time to build, but somehow I doubt (judging by the current, narrow range of existing articles: from Bogdanov-Takens Bifurcation to the FitzHugh-Nagumo Model) that Scholarpedia will ever have an article on Justin Timberlake. The whole reason Wikipedia was developed in the first place was a reaction against this elitism. While Scholarpedia might be helpful to academia, the average Joe will have
no reason to check it out or even to know of its existence. Thus, Scholarpedia’s comparison of themselves to Wikipedia (see the main page) is irrelevant. The two websites are not even in the same ballpark—they have different purposes, different audiences, and different content. Furthermore, the direct comparison to Wikipedia, which reads as condescending and spiteful, just pushes Scholarpedia further into the realm of academic snobbery.Taken to the other extreme, what happens when we have a website with no checks and balances? Take, for example, the website inspired by Stephen Colbert’s numerous rants on the “truthiness” (i.e. the unreliability) of Wikipedia: Wikiality. The website, although very significant in a cultural sense, has zero academic consequence. But the interesting thing about Wikiality is that the articles are all very consistent—surprisingly more so than even the semi-policed Wikipedia. Despite the fact that the site is developed and maintained by fans of Colbert, and has practically no regulation or quality control, it is difficult to find an article, or even a small piece of an article, on Wikiality that is not aligned with the views and beliefs of Stephen Colbert’s character. Once in a while you might find an angry Christian or an irate Republican who, tired of Colbert’s satire, decides to vandalize an article, but these angry comments are often kept on the page and, once a little new material is added, they only fuel the satire (see this section on “The Baby Jesus”). What Wikiality shows us is that as long as the contributors are all working along the same ideological lines consistency is not a problem.
In conclusion:
Wikipedia = the working-class peon who is allowed to make a few mistakes as long as he doesn’t anger the academics
Scholarpedia = the stuffy PhD who has no time for the peon’s concerns
Wikiality = the stupid, biased uncle who doesn’t really care about anything
Ultimate conclusion:
Go to the library and do the research yourself.
Ultimate ultimate conclusion:
Without Wikipedia we would have no links to add to blog posts.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Scholarpedia.org
Garret sent this along about scholarpedia.org, and I thought I'd passed it on. He writes: "It's a wiki-formatted site called scholarpedia that attempts to address some of the primary criticisms of wikipedia by incorporating a peer-review function as well as what they term a 'curator.' The curator is responsible for the maintanance of individual articles." The link is scholarpedia.org.
I just had a quick look and the content seems to be relatively limited at the moment: that is, if you want to know about "quasiperiodic oscillation," it is a good place to look. It will be interesting to watch what happens with it.
Thinking about our discussion as well, I realized that perhaps there is a difference between defending wikipedia's content per se, and defending it as a social experiment. I happen to think (and there has been some research to back this up) that--without the interventions of hackers (like Thor's students)--the content would be surprisingly reliable, but I am not sure that reliability is the only basis upon which it should be judged. Granted, it is an encyclopedia and not an exercise in self-expression, but my hunch is that for some pages, wikipedia contributors can do a better job than the staff a more "expert" staff. Where wikipedia runs into trouble is with more controversial pages (like those dealing with climate change, for example). I also think the implicit defense of traditional media outlets, as if they were infallible, is ridiculous.
Sorry for the rant; I have been reading Andrew Keen's ghastly book (he has a blog here, though he attacks them mercilessly in his book), and had to vent. For the fairest characterization of the book that is humanly possible, see this New York Times review.
I just had a quick look and the content seems to be relatively limited at the moment: that is, if you want to know about "quasiperiodic oscillation," it is a good place to look. It will be interesting to watch what happens with it.
Thinking about our discussion as well, I realized that perhaps there is a difference between defending wikipedia's content per se, and defending it as a social experiment. I happen to think (and there has been some research to back this up) that--without the interventions of hackers (like Thor's students)--the content would be surprisingly reliable, but I am not sure that reliability is the only basis upon which it should be judged. Granted, it is an encyclopedia and not an exercise in self-expression, but my hunch is that for some pages, wikipedia contributors can do a better job than the staff a more "expert" staff. Where wikipedia runs into trouble is with more controversial pages (like those dealing with climate change, for example). I also think the implicit defense of traditional media outlets, as if they were infallible, is ridiculous.
Sorry for the rant; I have been reading Andrew Keen's ghastly book (he has a blog here, though he attacks them mercilessly in his book), and had to vent. For the fairest characterization of the book that is humanly possible, see this New York Times review.
Monday, September 24, 2007
Broadside Ballads
I have remembered where I was reading about Broadside Ballads, which were in circulation during the sixeenth century and provide an interesting perspective on the interaction between orality and literacy. If anyone is interested in reading more, you could look at the introduction to Adam Fox's _Oral and Literate Culture in England, 1500-1700_ (2000)
Latin in Jan-Dirk Muller's article
In case anyone is interested, I have done a rough translation of some of the Latin used in "The Body of the Book":
p.184 'In libris posuisti procul dubio tabernaculum tuum' - Without a doubt, you have placed your temple in books
p. 188 'quamuis enim ars typographica librorum conseruationi nata uideatur' - For however much typographic skill seems born for the preservation of books'
p.188 'pristinam suam et nativam integitatem' - its former and inborn purity [correctness]
p.184 'In libris posuisti procul dubio tabernaculum tuum' - Without a doubt, you have placed your temple in books
p. 188 'quamuis enim ars typographica librorum conseruationi nata uideatur' - For however much typographic skill seems born for the preservation of books'
p.188 'pristinam suam et nativam integitatem' - its former and inborn purity [correctness]
Monday, September 17, 2007
Writing and _The Phaedrus_
Hello all, at the risk of seeming overly pretentious I thought some of you might be interested in reading the section from Plato that Ong refers to. I think it fits nicely into a discussion about orality and writing.
-Dave
Socrates: Well, then, I heard that at Naucratis in Egypt there lived on of the ancient gods of that region, the one whose sacred bird they called Ibis. The name of the divine being himself is Theuth. He was the first to invent mathematics, geometry, and astronomy, as well as backgammon and dice, and moreover, written letters. At that time Thamus was king of all of Egypt around the great city of the upper region that the Greeks call Egyptian Thebes. They call the god Ammon. Theuth came to Thamus and demonstrated his arts, saying that they ought to be passed on to the rest of the Egyptians. Thamus asked about the usefulness of each and, as Theuth went through them, condemned some and praised others, depending on whether Theuth's claims seemed well-taken or not. It's said that Thamus presented many points both for and against each art, which would take a long speech to report, but when it came to letters, Theuth said, "This branch of learning, your majesty, will make the Egyptians wiser and improve their memories, for I've discovered a magic potion for memory and wisdom." But Thamus replied, "Most artful Theuth, while one person is able to create the products of art, another is able to judge what harms or benefits they hold for those who intend to use them. Now you, the father of letters, as a result of your affection for them, are stating the opposite of what their effect will be. Of people learn them it will make their souls forget through the lack of exercising their memory. They'll put trust in the external marks of writing instead of using their own internal capacity for remembering on their own. You've discovered a magic potion not for memory, but for reminding, and you offer you pupils apparent, not true, wisdom. After they have heard many things from you, but without instruction, they will seem to be very knowledgeable when they are for the most part ignorant, and they will be hard to get along with, since they will have only the appearance of wisdom instead of really being wise.
...
In a way, Phaedrus, writing has a strange character, which is similar to that of painting, actually. Painting's creations stand there as though they were alive, but if you ask them anything, they maintain a quite solemn silence. Speeches are the same way. You might expect them to speak like intelligent beings, but if you question them with the intention of learning something about what they're saying, they always just continue saying the same thing. Every speech, once it's in writing, is bandied about everywhere equally among those who understand and those who have no business having it. It doesn't know to whom it ought to speak and to who not. When it's ill-treated and unfairly abused, it always needs its father to help it, since it isn't able to help or defend itself by itself (The Phaedrus, 132-133)
-Dave
Socrates: Well, then, I heard that at Naucratis in Egypt there lived on of the ancient gods of that region, the one whose sacred bird they called Ibis. The name of the divine being himself is Theuth. He was the first to invent mathematics, geometry, and astronomy, as well as backgammon and dice, and moreover, written letters. At that time Thamus was king of all of Egypt around the great city of the upper region that the Greeks call Egyptian Thebes. They call the god Ammon. Theuth came to Thamus and demonstrated his arts, saying that they ought to be passed on to the rest of the Egyptians. Thamus asked about the usefulness of each and, as Theuth went through them, condemned some and praised others, depending on whether Theuth's claims seemed well-taken or not. It's said that Thamus presented many points both for and against each art, which would take a long speech to report, but when it came to letters, Theuth said, "This branch of learning, your majesty, will make the Egyptians wiser and improve their memories, for I've discovered a magic potion for memory and wisdom." But Thamus replied, "Most artful Theuth, while one person is able to create the products of art, another is able to judge what harms or benefits they hold for those who intend to use them. Now you, the father of letters, as a result of your affection for them, are stating the opposite of what their effect will be. Of people learn them it will make their souls forget through the lack of exercising their memory. They'll put trust in the external marks of writing instead of using their own internal capacity for remembering on their own. You've discovered a magic potion not for memory, but for reminding, and you offer you pupils apparent, not true, wisdom. After they have heard many things from you, but without instruction, they will seem to be very knowledgeable when they are for the most part ignorant, and they will be hard to get along with, since they will have only the appearance of wisdom instead of really being wise.
...
In a way, Phaedrus, writing has a strange character, which is similar to that of painting, actually. Painting's creations stand there as though they were alive, but if you ask them anything, they maintain a quite solemn silence. Speeches are the same way. You might expect them to speak like intelligent beings, but if you question them with the intention of learning something about what they're saying, they always just continue saying the same thing. Every speech, once it's in writing, is bandied about everywhere equally among those who understand and those who have no business having it. It doesn't know to whom it ought to speak and to who not. When it's ill-treated and unfairly abused, it always needs its father to help it, since it isn't able to help or defend itself by itself (The Phaedrus, 132-133)
The Role of Institutions
One aspect of last week's discussion that I want to say a bit more about is the role that institutions and institutional pressures play in defining the field of study we are investigating. To that end, I thought I should introduce you to a couple of websites hosted by major organizations in the field:
Bibliographic Society of America:
http://www.bibsocamer.org/
Sharp (Society for the History of Authorship, Reading and Publishing):
http://www.sharpweb.org/
Media Ecology Assocation:
http://www.media-ecology.org/
As you will see, these sites make some efforts to define the field, and have considerable memberships and resources, with regular conferences, and some with their own journals and fellowships. As we discussed in class, these institutions are in many ways a response to the constant scrutiny and pressure that is brought to bear on teachers and scholars of the humanities in higher education, who are compelled to defend, seemingly on a daily basis, the "relevance" and practical contributions of their discipline. (To that end, two very recent and interesting assessments of this issue are to be found in Marjorie Perloff's 2006 Presidential Address "It Must Change" in the PMLA 122: 3 (May 2007): 652–662 and in Rachel Donadio's article, printed in yesterday's NYT, "Revisiting the Canon Wars." Though not strictly relevant to the role of material approaches to literary study, they offer a broader context for understanding some of the developments within this (and other) fields.)
It would also be interesting to consider the differences between these three organizations. Are they speaking about the same questions, just in different language or levels of abstraction? Or are there real differences between them?
Bibliographic Society of America:
http://www.bibsocamer.org/
Sharp (Society for the History of Authorship, Reading and Publishing):
http://www.sharpweb.org/
Media Ecology Assocation:
http://www.media-ecology.org/
As you will see, these sites make some efforts to define the field, and have considerable memberships and resources, with regular conferences, and some with their own journals and fellowships. As we discussed in class, these institutions are in many ways a response to the constant scrutiny and pressure that is brought to bear on teachers and scholars of the humanities in higher education, who are compelled to defend, seemingly on a daily basis, the "relevance" and practical contributions of their discipline. (To that end, two very recent and interesting assessments of this issue are to be found in Marjorie Perloff's 2006 Presidential Address "It Must Change" in the PMLA 122: 3 (May 2007): 652–662 and in Rachel Donadio's article, printed in yesterday's NYT, "Revisiting the Canon Wars." Though not strictly relevant to the role of material approaches to literary study, they offer a broader context for understanding some of the developments within this (and other) fields.)
It would also be interesting to consider the differences between these three organizations. Are they speaking about the same questions, just in different language or levels of abstraction? Or are there real differences between them?
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
Welcome
Greetings everyone.
I have added all of you as members so you are all free to post as you like. You will have to become members of blogspot, if you are not already, to do so.
I mentioned in class (and after class to Larry) an article in the recent edition of the PMLA by Ed Folsom on the "Epic Transformation of the Archives"; I read the title on the back cover, and now realize that this article is only forthcoming, in the October issue, so we will have to wait until then. There are responses from Peter Stallybrass, Jerome McGann, Katherine Hayles, and others, so I think we should definitely try to work it into the course, if it comes out in time, though I fear it may not, since the issue that just arrived is dated May, 2007.
The link to the Victorian Materialities conferences is http://web.uvic.ca/~navsa/. It is being held in Victoria from Oct. 10 - 13. The deadline for the early registration fee of $80 is Sept. 15; and the form says that as Canadian grad. students you are eligible for a reduction. As I mentioned as well, the department has funding for conference travel, so you should see whether you are eligible for that as well. I believe that a few members of our department will be attending and presenting papers as well.
Hopefully you can figure out the relevance of the photo to our discussions ... Hint: it has something to do with the material origins of books.
It was wonderful meeting you all tonight. I am really looking forward to working with you.
Happy blogging!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)