The Value in Wikipedia

Working on Short Assignment Six helped me to realize that peer editing has value. So many times being an EWM Major our instructors teach us the importune of what it is to be a good writer but they don’t focus on the editing process. The editing process is just as crucial to the writing process because if your thoughts are poorly constructed than you may not communicate effectively your point. Peer editing is also a valuable tool because your never want your rhetorical velocity to star off strong.

I am beginning to buy into that Wikipedia is a valuable source in the writing classroom because we have been always taught that it’s bad to use Wikipedia in any of our other classes. The value that is not seen in Wikipedia is that you need a community to feed your thoughts out too because your not always going to get your thoughts on paper out right. After all the whole reason writers are writing is to convey discourse to their discourse community to get people to think or effect change in some way or nothing.

There needs to be more active that encourage writers to come together and work together in community so that their able to make sure that their thoughts are communicated well in the public sphere.

Public Discourse on Plagiarism in the Composition Classroom

Found within the writing community there are countless principles and theories that have been constructed by previous generations of writers. For Founding Fathers of various writing communities have shaped how writing communities think and construct their text today. Taking part as an active member of the Composition Community in the world of writing I purpose that it’s time that the Composition Community found within our University System’s today need to have more discourse on plagiarism. My notion for discourse on Plagiarism arises from the readings of RHETORICAL VELOCITY AND COPYRIGHT: A CASE STUDY ON STRATEGIES OF REHTORICAL DELIVERY written by Jim Ridolfo and Martine Courant Rife. Last but not least, my discussion will be drawing from PLAGIARISM AND PROMISCUITY, AUTHORS AND PLAGRISMS written by Russel Wiebe. Two topics of discourse that I feel are essential and need to take place about plagiarism in the composition classroom are a concrete definition of what plagiarism is, and ownership. 

The general view that I see on the stance of plagiarism in the composition community found within university systems is if Plagiarism is bad and then it must be punished. From the time I started orientation as a student, the University has told me not to do it. Majority of my English classes start off with a mandated conversation by the University that my teachers have to give us about the forms of plagiarism and that if we commit any of them that there will be serious disciplinary action to follow. Weibe said it best when he said “Plagiarism, it seems is everywhere.”(31). Wiebe made this claim after stating how easy it is to plagiarize and describing the “hierarchy of plagiarism.” that is well known (31). Which brings me to my first point of discourse our community needs to do better at describing what plagiarism. is. If you just tell a child no that’s bad and don’t properly describe to them what it is then your doing them a disservice. Composition classrooms are treating their students like this in the university system. In the classroom there needs to be more concrete discussion on what plagiarism is instead of this broad loose interpretation. If not how can students know that they are making mistakes.

The next discourse that I feel needs to take place is ownership. Copyright and plagiarism act as twins. In conversation its hard not to discuss concerns without bring up the other topic. When the topic of ownership is thrown into the mix of conversation involving the two, are community hasn’t done the best job of discussing it. It’s a topic that has just been swept under the rug for another day. I understand why it’s a topic that is not a favorite of discussion. Ultimately conversations of ownership wavers between crossing the line of other social issues but not talking about it don’t make it right. When we don’t talk about it we end up with cases like we did in the article on plagiarism arises from the readings of RHETORICAL VELOCITY AND COPYRIGHT: A CASE STUDY ON STRATEGIES OF REHTORICAL DELIEVERY .

Maggie was a student at Michigan State University who was participating in a media campaign constructed by student’s to gain awareness and stop the school from having college apparel made in sweat shops. The university in student promotion materials later used her image from the media campaign. Rife and Ridoflo discuss how Maggie’s rhetorical velocity was to effect change on her campus not promote student life at Michigan state university (229). The complexity of Maggie’s situation is it’s not clearly defined who owned the image. There are no clear boundaries that say she owned it or the university. Cases like Maggie’s are found within the composition classroom. When students begin to remix and remediate for their project, we have this struggle of ownership and is it copyright infringement. Right now there are no clear-cut answers but if we sit down as a community and discuss this I feel that we can start making positive strides in the right direction. Ultimately we can’t deny that are world is changing due to modern technology but just as our founding fathers made clear theory and principles for us to follow today, we have got to start having serious conversations about Plagiarism and ownership rights so that are future generations have a guideline to follow.