Wikipedia Reflection

As a culmination of the knowledge I obtained in my Advanced Editing and Writing Class, I was require to collaborate with about twenty other classmates to create a Wikipedia article. This project gave us an (almost uncomfortable) sense of freedom because this article was to be completely defined by us: the topic was chosen by us, as well as the organization and the content. Many students would rejoice in the ability to give the project whatever direction pleased them, but I found this daunting. The article that we would be writing would guide knowledge that others learned, much like how I spent hours on Wikipedia looking up information on topics that interested me. Furthermore, it was daunting to think that I would be working with twenty other students, all with this own priorities and agendas. I had not a clue how to organize such a large group- my largest project involved five people, and even then it was difficult to delegate tasks and make sure that everyone was pulling their weight.

I was able to mitigate this sense of foreboding after discussing this with my professor and entire class. It seemed that every person was having the same difficulties; they were worried that we would lead the article in the wrong direction, or the twenty different voices that comprised the article would make it sound choppy and unintelligent. This was not the first time a large group of people came together to create a public text on Wikipedia. What was occurring in our classroom was happening in different rooms all around the world, and makes up the very essence of what Wikipedia stands for. Wikipedia is created from collaborations and had many articles to help guide novice article writers who took on this daunting task; we were not exploring uncharted territory. We came to realize that, no matter what direction our article took, it would have value simply because it exists. The empty space of knowledge due to the lack of our article was to be defined by us. Of course, we had to abide by Wikipedia’s rules of bias and Point of View, but it gave us comfort to know that there was no single ‘correct’ article. 

As a generation that has virtually been educated by Wikipedia, I feel that most people-strangely enough- tend to undervalue the world’s largest online encyclopedia. It is ever-present, and people who are uninvolved in the creation of article (largely those people who comprise the main audience) do not understand the depth of involvement required. There is much to be discussed, mitigated, and placed in order for the article to make sense to an uninvolved audience. This process gave me quite the reality check. After we were given our group assignments, I had assumed that there would be a person who wished to designate themselves the leader. After a quick analysis of all my two teammates, I quickly realized that I would have to assume that position. I had never considered myself a leader before this, but I quickly found myself filling the vacuum that was left by this leadership position. I found myself delegating appropriate tasks and contacting the different constituents of my group to make sure they were being completed on time. After one member of my group dropped the class, me and my singular partner had a lot to do (compared to the 10 or so other groups in the class with 3+ members).

Upon initially composing the Wikipedia article, I found myself particularly confounded with one aspect of the composition- knowing just who our audience was. Part of the audience I was writing for was students similar to myself, who just wished to learn more about subjects that interested them. Others were Wikipedia writers themselves. Others may be incredibly sheltered, and some may be more knowledgeable than the article writers themselves. The possible audience is a wide as the internet is itself, but one consideration is very important: We are writing this article so that the audience will feel compelled to edit it further. Much like Danielle Devoss talks about in her text “composing for recomposition,” we must consider how our article might be repurposed or edited, and keep than in mind when writing. That was one guiding principle I remembered when initially writing my portion of the article. 

Yet another aspect of article writing that was important was mitigating my tone. Inherently, a Wikipedia article is supposed to lack any bias or point of view. The articles are supposed to contain strictly facts, and all facts must be cited so that I reader could understand the context of the information. It was very common for me to contain phrases such as “most importantly” and “unfortunately” when beginning a sentence. This was bad for wikipedia’s use, because those phrases give the information a certain bias. Who am I to say that example was the most important, or this fact was unfortunate? Acknowledging and deleting those instances of editorializing really helped my article be more official and informational.

After drafting this Wikipedia article, I know understand the full depth of composing for the most public space. Wikipedia is the place on the internet where people go to learn more about a subject.It is the first space my audience thinks to look, and believes it contains accurate information. The article I wrote no longer affected just me- it affected the world. After taking on such an important task, I feel now that I truly have some insight on how my writing can have true, real world repercussions.

Works Cited

 Bezemer, Jeff; Gunther Kress (April 2008). "Writing in Multimodal Texts: A Social Semiotic Account of Designs for Learning". Written Communication 25 (2): 166–195

 Ridolfo, Jim; Danielle Nicole DeVoss. "Composing for Recomposition: Rhetorical Velocity and Delivery". Kairos 13.2. 


 

Time, Analytically

Time And Its Ability to Persuade

Rachel Young

In the world, there exists a man-made concept that holds the power to control space. It defines the changes in the world and provides a mean to quantify subjects of an unquantifiable nature. It is not tangible, nor is it easily described, but we are acutely aware of its affect on our beings. This entity can be harnessed, molded, emphasized or deemphasized to fit a specific need… and it does so in an incredibly effective way. The entity of which I speak is ‘time.’ As we humans go through schooling, we learn about the world in context of time- through world history and presidential terms, through life cycles and chemical reactions. Our own lives are delicately connected to the concept of time- many people are acutely aware of a perceived lack of time, when concerning their own existences. Time is a multi-faceted subject, which touches everyone, everything and everywhere.

Time has an extraordinary power. We, as humans, are so incredibly attentive to its existence that sometimes we discredit the power we have over it- that we have the ability to change ourselves in the present and that we can affect the future. Time also has an incredible power over us- references to past occurrences often have the ability to elicit intense emotions. This ability of time, to give immediacy to our claims and give us an intimate awareness of the subject at hand, has not remained untapped. In documentaries, news castings, blogs, as well as other types of media, time has been utilized to create audiences and to give their stories focus… which creates a very successful model for presenting information.

This model changes in the field of public discourse. Public figures address a variety of subjects, all of which touches people in infinitely different way- every audience member has their own specific context, and it is hard to frame an subject in a way that interests a multitude of people at once, and a large audience is necessary if there is to be a distinctive change in the public… a small audience usually won’t cut in this area of largely debated issues and historical challenges. Time is one of few things that affects most everyone the same way, an emphasis on the immediacy of a topic can spark interest in a subject that was ignore before. Moreover, appealing to time does not only help create an audience. Public discourse has an aim to do more than just inform a mass audience. If public discourse is to be effective, it not only needs to work within the stases of value and policy, but furthermore, moving the audience to act. Otherwise, there will be no public change. If there is no resulting change in the audience, the discourse may as well have never occurred. Time has the ability to change all of this.

There are an indeterminate ways to appeal to the all-too-human concern for time, but for all intents and purposes, I limit myself to just two: a focus on the present and a focus on the past. I have two examples of public discourse which use either of these appeals, and it aim to discover just how the use of time can affect an audience so much so, that they elect to change their own lives as a result.

In the midst of a vicious presidential battle between Barack Obama and John Mccain, one speech rose above all the rest. It is now fondly referred to as “the race speech,” and addressed topics that were pertinent to Obama’s candidacy. Obama spoke to show the public that a vote for his presidency was a vote against racism. He spoke to demonstrate how a ‘more perfect union’ was possible. Mostly, he spoke to show people how racism affects their everyday lives, and how they have the power to change it. Knowing this, it is not surprising that Obama situated his speech in the present and future.

It is clear that Obama’s speech addresses an issue about ‘misunderstandings of each other’s intended frame of reference in making certain statements’- Kaufer’s level II argument. Obama acknowledges this, quite matter-of-factly, when he says “They've {Caucasians} worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas…when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed.” Each person involved in racism only sees it from their point of view and through a lens of selfishness, without bothering to think how it might affect the other faction. This issue is inherently situated in the present, as a constant decision that is made every day. Obama goes on to explain how focus on each specific issue that comes along won’t fix the problem of racism. A solution to racism exists in understanding others’ problems and respecting them as much as your own. This is why Obama puts so much emphasis on the man who was “there for Ashley.”

Obama does not completely disregard past events- in fact, he references them quite often. He references slavery, possibly the most notorious example of racism in history. Obama touches on the issue of Reverend Wright and his racist comments, which created a public uproar. Obama speaks of his own past, with a mother from Kansas and a father from Kenya. He also speaks of Ashley Baia, who’s mother filed for bankruptcy after she had to undergo treatment for cancer. Obama brings up these personal anecdotes not to focus on the past, but to highlight the immediacy of this issue. These stories show how the problem of racism is very much in the present. He uses to them to bolster the idea of a corrupt present- that this problem is unchanging. It brings racism to the attention of the audience by portraying it in these intimate settings. Obama brings it all together by describing that the ends of these stories are the beginnings of a new, stronger union.  But he always brings it back to the urgency of present.

President Obama further situates this issue in the present and future by becoming quite visionary; he describes America’s potential, speaks of the results of the future election, and talks about how it is everyone’s wish for a union where everyone is treated with equal respect. Obama creates these lofty ideals, but then brings his audience back to reality: these ideals are not possible without realizing the problems of today. Obama explains how closely these are involved by saying “…It also means binding our particular grievances - for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs - to the larger aspirations of all Americans -- the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family.” It makes these goals seem attainable to his audience… by changing your mindset (as well as voting for Obama), a ‘more perfect union’ is possible. It makes it real.

The issue of racism provides an interesting juxtaposition between a crisis in the present and a potentially racism-free future: it is an issue that needs time to be resolved, but cannot begin without present action from the audience. This sense of urgency, that it is a crisis of the present as well as the future, helps move the audience to action. For an audience who is ultimately short sighted, Obama acknowledges their ability to change the future. This is where Obama’s appeal to time really shines: By thoroughly demonstrating how personal action can extend past the present, he creates yet another reason for the audience to take action. ‘If not now, when?’ his race speech echoes ‘Racism is a problem affecting people now, and you can stop it.

Now we move to another example of public discourse: Robert Bullards lecture on ‘race response’. Robert Bullard’s discourse is on a very similar subject matter to that of Obama’s, but provides a more focused issue. Bullard speaks of how different races were treated differently in the wake of natural disasters, such as hurricanes. He wastes no time, explaining how there is a difference in the lack of care in issues that affect both Caucasians and African-Americans. This already lends his claim some immediacy- if Dr. Bullard doesn’t want his issue to be watered down by unnecessary context. That will be provided later in his lecture.

A majority of Bullard’s lecture is situated in the past. He cites instances such as Hurricane Betsy, where waste from the disaster zone was placed in an African-American neighborhood, significantly impacting their ability to recover from the disaster. Bullard speaks at lengths about the governmental assistance received by impoverished/black areas, but provides only facts and information. There is a lack of prophetical statements about what could happen- and instead focuses on the trials and tribulations that people of race have experienced.  This could be because Bullard’s subject is a level 3 argument, that “we give decisive weight to different evidence.” The privileged society may need the hurricane debris gone so that they can function, but underprivileged people could do without a toxic Superfund site in the middle of their neighborhood so they can recover. Both have their own views of what is important, taking into account the evidence that is presented to them. Bullard, quite obviously, believes that the injustice done to these underprivileged people outweighs the inhibitions that Caucasians would experience by finding an alternative means to manage waste.

Furthermore, Bullard does not bother connecting these past events to the present. He very clearly desires for it to be recognized that these events occurred through the history of America. “This is 1965” he says, repeating this and other dates at least 5 more times in his lecture- there is no mistaking his wish to for use to acknowledge the magnitude of these past events. A focus on the past events does, however, help him to create a sense of fear- the past cannot be changed, and harbors a distrust of the government. Bullard ignores a chance to give his argument a sense of urgency by showing that environmental racism is happening today and action needs to be taken. In fact, he barely mentions the idea of changing governmental policy at all.

Bullard’s desire to incite action is inherent in the fact that he is creating a public discourse, as opposed to any other rhetorical medium that would be more informational. He fails to make this obvious to the audience, or to provide them the means for action. Why would he appear to do himself a disservice?

The approach taken by Bullard to address this issue is actually quite clever.  It is similar to Jone’s description of the Enthymeme and Syllogism- he provides a major premise (the concept of environmental racism) and a minor premise (examples of environmental racism) but leaves the audience without a conclusion. The audience then, themselves, must come to a conclusion; whether or not they take action against this issue. For this, Bullard relies on a strong send of ethos and logos to carry his argument but offers no pathos to rouse emotions or a sense of time. It is more this reason that I believe Bullard desires a specific, informed audience- with the knowledge to comprehend that environmental racism is an imminent problem and the ability to make a change. His audience may be smaller, but they will be more inclined to take action- and the solution he proposed, albeit silently, requires a higher level of dedication than simply casting a vote. In this way, a focus on the past assures Bullard a small group of highly dedicated individuals who are grounded in solid facts and an unchanging past.

The differences in time between the two examples of discourse I provided are both blatant and nuanced. For the most apart, it boils down to the needs of the issue and the needs of the audience. The issues undertaken by each rhetor elicit a need from the discourse- whether that be blanket statements about the nature of America (vestiges of the arguments involving misunderstandings and value, levels 2, 4 and 5) or very specific anecdotes of how the US governmental failed in the face of disaster (called into existence by levels 1 and 3). Appealing to time, as one of the most intimate way to affect the human condition, can be both emphasized and deemphasized to have a similarly strong effect.  How it is used depends of the nature of the issue you, Obama or Bullard are trying to change.

White Paper

Navigating Rhetorical Velocity to Improve Corporate-to-Consumer Communication

By: Rachel Young

Table of Contents

I           Timeliness in Advertising

II          Integrated Solution

III         Case Study

IV         Velocity in Campaigns

V          Conclusion

VI         Works Cited

Timeliness in Advertising

“Time becomes a position of value that authors use to draw audiences to their own positions.”  (Killingsworth 39)

Figure 1: Wendy's 'Where's the Beef?' 

campaign was successful in the dawn of 

television advertising, but would the

 unchanging logo be enough for the 

consumers of today? 

 www.commonsensewithmoney.com

As a business professional, you may feel pressured to commit to the time-tested marketing technique: create a campaign that is so noticeable and memorable that the consumer, when presented with a choice, will instinctively gravitate towards the familiar. As a result of this technique, branding has become a time-consuming and effortful standard that has often been left to a hired third-party. Strict regulations have been instituted to ensure that the integrity of the company is not compromised, and copyright infringements are considered a crime worth pursuing in court. In these cases, time is seen as an enemy- if the advertisement is not designed to be timeless, its asset to the company diminished. It should not invite change, or involve the audience creatively- this type of marketing simply requires their recognition. Rhetorical velocity achieves similar goals, but through vastly different means. It takes existing corporate entities and invites them to be modified to achieve a different result that reaches different people, every single time.

Figure 2:  (http://hillaryhe.blogspot.com/2012/09/

54321-next-shortened-attention-spans-in.html)

The “one way street” view of advertising outdated. It is time to harness the power of cyclical processes (the ease of which is made possible by the internet) for the benefit of your business. The concept of rhetorical velocity has come as a response to this change. Rhetorical velocity is a cyclical process that relies on a constant exchange of responses from consumer to business, which can drive a continually updating marketing scheme. With the rise of social media, the attention span of potential customers has shifted. Figure 2 shows that any television audience no longer have the ability to hold their attention on a thirty second TV advertisement, electing to view multiple different sources of media in rapid succession. It has since become a challenge for companies to remain relevant, nearly forcing their advertising campaigns to shift focus to the needs of their audience. Killingsworth, a professor at Texas A&M University, studied the use of time in rhetoric. In his text on the subject, he explains how audiences, rather than being moved to action (choosing one item/service over the competition) by unchanging advertisements and logos, are now attracted when an advertisement appeals to their sense of time. Focusing on the immediacy issue (where should I eat? What should I buy? Where should I go?), rather than the timelessness of it, helps coax a potential consumer to choose your company. Remediation, using this innovative concept of time, provides a solution to this common problem faced by businesses across the globe. By making your advertisements immediate and ever-changing, it is possible to stay relevant, 24/7, to an audience that feels actively involved in your product.

Integrated Solution

The consumer is a driving force on how rhetorical velocity can shape a company. Velocity cannot stand alone, and must always be accompanied by remediations. Jay Bolter and Richard Grusin theorize, in their article, the concept of remediation as “the representation of one medium in another medium.” In essence, everything that is in existence is a remediation of something that came before it by involving new media, or ideas. In business, remediation functions very differently than this theoretical concept: a logo (jingle, image or anything that identifies a company) is used in different contexts, and cuts out unnecessary steps in the branding process. A television commercial can be reappropriated into a humorous image, which is circulated on the internet, or a popular image can be juxtaposed to current events. Consumers may even feel compelled to put their own spin on a product. This process of remediating can involved creative individuals involved in the company, or can be left to an audience to complete. Seeing the same concept reimagined in several different contexts does several interesting things to an audience.

These several things are:

1)      The audience has an individualized experience with the company

2)      The audience engages with the advertisement, forfeiting the need to actively gain their attention

3)      The audience creates their own remediations, creating their own niche

4)      The audience helps create a constantly evolving brand, which transforms to fit ever-changing needs

Figure 3: Rhetorical velocity works just 

as well from the top-down (if an 

audience's first experience with the 

company is through a remediated work).

With resources available to them, dedicated and high-opinionated individuals have been known to remediate a company’s material with or without the sanctioned approval of the company at hand.  These limitless possibilities of remediation can be harnessed (and subsequently increased) for a company’s benefit by marketing with an emphasis in rhetorical velocity.

Rhetorical Velocity understands that remediations are inevitable.  In figure 3, we can see that when audiences create their own remediations (the highest point of the triangle), their opinion of the entire product/brand is strengthened (the base of the triangle). Analyzing these reappropriations for contextualizing evidence helps a creator focus on predicting how a certain entity might be reappropriated in the future.  In essence, you are creating fodder for an audience to digest and recreate with their own inspiration, concerns, love and attention. Rhetorical velocity inherently appeals to a shortened attention span because, in effective, the remediations are always being circulated to new audiences. A marketing technique which involved rhetorical velocity would not only invite change, but embraces it.

Case Study

“How I Met Your Mother” is an incredibly successful television series. Currently in its 8^th season, the main stable aspects of the show are the characters and the memorable song that is played during the intro. The creators and marketing directors of How I Met Your Mother have involved their show in social media, namely Facebook and Twitter. They do not merely use these social media tools to simply relay information. Instead, the people behind HIMYM used rhetorical velocity to make sure that their material was understood, not just seen. On Valentine’s Day, they posted humorous Valentine’s day cards featuring the characters for free use on their timeline. They post pictures and invite responses. The HIMYM twitter acknowledges what is trending about the television show and responds, in a timely manner, to what is being said. Television is used online, and the internet is being involved in the television show. Without altering the main product, they present their show in such a manner that the audience cannot help but become involved. The allure of constant change that responds to an environment is why rhetorical velocity is so effective.

Their light-hearted attitude, sense of humor and willingness to let small discrepancies slide give the audience of How I Met Your Mother with much more than just a television show- it gives them something that is worthy of their time and attention.

Velocity in Campaigns

“In other words, we need to stop thinking about copyright law in terms of what isn’t possible, but also in terms of what is possible—that is, how rhetors can strategically compose for the recomposition of their own intellectual property. “ (Ridolfo)

When you are using rhetorical velocity, you are creating something with the means for it to be remediated. Remediations do not necessarily require the use of the internet, but the same cannot be said for rhetorical velocity. Rhetorical velocity involves a subconscious appeal to time, which necessitates the instantaneous qualities of the internet and social media. The immediacy of the experience itself helps the audience to elicit attention.

Works that are created with rhetorical velocity in mind have the ability to transcend time and space- a thousand responses can be generated in a second, while they can be moved to be across the world in half that time. This can be controlled by the audience, but it facilitated/guided by the business itself. In that way, the company had the potential to save time and money- while still forming a brand. However, this brand is what the audience desires, not what is forced upon them.

Rhetorical velocity and remediation provides another benefit for companies that utilize it: instantaneous feedback. Rather than having to wait for reports to be published, marketing professionals are able to see a general consensus of their success through the remediations which are created (or lack thereof). This relies much on gut feeling rather than hard numbers, for the number of remediations are often far less than the actual audience. Figure 4 describes this cycle of responses and how they manifest feedback.  

Figure 5: 1) The materials a company supplies for reappropriation.

 2) The audience alters the material as they please.

 3) The company looks at the responses. 

4) The company responds accordingly, creating new material.

Rhetorical velocity is often questioned for its ethics, for remediations involved a less-rigid idea of what is allowed and what is not. Copyright legality is at the discretion of the original creators/copyright holders. However, if the remediation is not to appropriate money or slander the company, the principles of rhetorical velocity should hold true. A business should also be wary of extreme cases, where the sheer volume of responses exceeding the limitations of the business, as well as when the remediations of the work replace the product/service in the audience’s consumerism.

The use of rhetorical velocity in campaigns cannot be easily defined in words, due to its limitless capabilities. The way rhetorical velocity is utilized will be different to every business, but must start with a simple, interpretable foundation upon which ideas can be built.

Conclusion

Jimmie Killingsworth theorizes how humans are hardwired to believe that the present is better than the past. Companies can harness this innate belief to their advantage by including the audience in the creation of the brand at its present, rather than its past. This is done through remediated works, facilitated by rhetorical velocity. This process creates something that is novel, always innovative, and ever-changing. This results in rapid growth for the company and brand-name, while improving the communication and response time between the company and the consumer.

Works Cited

Bolter, Jay David, and Richard Grusin. "Remediation." Configurations 4.3 (1996): 311-358. 

Killingsworth Jimmie M. “Appeals to Time” In Appeals in Modern Rhetoric:And Ordinary-Language Approach. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois U P, 2005. 38-51.

Ridolfo, Jim, and Martine Courant Rife. “Rhetorical Velocity and Copyright: A Case Study on Strategies of Rhetorical Delivery.” Copy(write): Intellectual Property in the Writing Classroom 

 Ed. Martine Courant Rife, Shaun Slattery, and Dànielle Nicole De Voss. Fort Collins, CO: The WAC Clearinghouse and Parlor Press, 2011