Working Together in the Age of Information
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lseg10HRb4mEfcRSblWvfob67O31cx_NhPI2A07GB-8/edit?usp=sharing
Paper Two Rough Draft
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lbuDsRtHZudkE6FjbwkiUsN03wUnTu5clMFFV7BpoS0/edit?usp=sharing
Paper two framing statements
1. Between the rough draft presented and the final version of this paper there were a wealth of changes in the design of the paper, order of topics, phrases used, and many minor local revisions where even singular words were changed. This is quite typical of the way that I write papers in between a rough draft and a final draft. The first change that might be noticed between the papers are the titles. I don’t really ever have a title first unless one jumps out at me, and the draft has a working title, while the final choice was “Working Together in the Age of Information.” Nice and snappy. Also I did a lot of expansion that went into the final version. There were many places I had laid out a home for something else to fit into, like the bold statement on the draft “APPIAH PARAGRAPH” which the more perceptive reader may notice became a paragraph mostly dedicated to Appiah’s Cosmopolitanism while expanding upon the ideas that were being laid out for this essay. The introduction as well as the direction of the essay were changed in a major way as well. The essay started with a simple enough question: “Why can’t we get along?” Then I realized I knew the answer, or at least some of the roots of the problem so it became a solution. The syntax issue I came across most commonly was the mis-capitalization of words I incorrectly assumed to be proper nouns and proper nouns that I failed to give their proper treatment. This is something I’ve always found to be difficult when discussing modern topics or really anything that has to do with politics.
2. The sources that I used in my significant essay came from Appiah’s Cosmopolitanism, and an article written by Ron Currie Jr. In this paper my main arguments revolved around the idea that the divide between individuals with different beliefs has became incredibly vast thanks to the aid of facebook and other polarizing media. I used both of these readings to think about conversation, assimilation, and the pathways through which people communicate. Appiah’s idea of cosmopolitanism was very effective when making the allusion that every single person with a wi-fi connection is a citizen of the internet. Cosmopolitan translates literally as a citizen of the cosmos, one who doesn’t assign themselves to an identity except as a member of their world. on the internet where all are equal this is something that may be useful to keep in mind. We spent a long time in the classroom analyzing both the article and Cosmopolitanism. In the article Ron Currie Jr. has a conversation with an estranged cousin who is just as right wing as Currie is left. Currie realizes that although there are divides in name, people often want the same things and gaps can be easily divided through a little bit of respect. Now this was something easily applicable to my internet ideas. I have a lot of experience from my past including arguments and evidence when attempting to prove a point so this is something that now comes a bit easily.
3. In Susan Gilroy’s “Interrogating texts” it’s stated that “Ongoing conversation with yourself as you move through a text” is a positive action that should be used by the reader. In my experience I’ve found that often when writing essays students forget their own beliefs and start seeing the material that they should interact with as law. This is not inherently a negative thing, but whenever a person writes anything it is a reflection of the self, so you kind of have an obligation to introduce the reader to the person writing, you. In my informal reading response I created a discussion between Appiah and Yoshino, the two perspectives I was interacting with. My reading practices involved taking both of their opinions, comparing them to my own and then further expanding on both of their ideas based on the knowledge that I already possess. With all of this taken into consideration I was able to convert what both of them had written into something else entirely. Whenever I annotate anything first I start with a read through where I just underline anything that I find interesting. I do not make any notes on the annotations at this time. Then I read it a second time, where I fill in what I’ve underlined with my own opinions, comments, and critiques of what I’ve read. I feel that my process is quite effective and results in strong arguments with relevant quotations that back them up. This is the method that works best for me.
4. peer reviewing involves the analysis of another person’s paper which allows for more insight on the writers part. There is a lot that can be learned from a good peer review. A lot of the time when I receive a peer review of any form, I receive an opportunity to take a step back and look at my paper from another’s perspective I end up changing so much from the first to second drafts that the paper becomes almost completely unrecognizable from the first edition. When I peer review I tend to think like an editor. What can we change to make this paper better? Where does it stop making sense? What can we do to make it flow smoother? One problem I see a lot is that the writer and the editor often have wildly different perspectives, which can lead to ideas becoming misconstrued due to the editors wishes and the writer taking none of the ideas that the editor presented, even though some may be quite good.
5. Typically grammar and spelling mistakes are fixed in the writing process. As I’m writing my paper I’m already going through the proofreading process, adding details to a paragraph immediately after I’ve ‘finished’ it. Usually my grammar errors are fixed by correcting what I feel is the correct way to say things and the religious googling of definitions. In my significant essays the citations are proper and attributed to the sources that I used correctly. I still have trouble getting my MLA citations correct on the first try, but through practice I am getting better at using them. I believe that citations are probably the most difficult step in the writing process. For everything else the rules are simple. Grammar is set in stone, but there is a specific way to cite every different type of format, and when I’m in classes where teachers appreciate different kinds of citations. Everything seems to be fairly easy for me besides citations.
Duhigg and Andrews Final
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KTcZ90nfFaYcE_IubsygB_fez-IE-bS7bGI73wTfDp4/edit?usp=sharing
Duhigg and Andrews Rough Draft
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_tFmg8kNqVnT0MLoU-IiHEN2OZmr54eVQu6Ft3Vu-yk/edit?usp=sharing
