Heath Chapel? More Like 'Cheap Shrapnel!'

Sources are the lifeblood of Wikipedia. They lend credibility to the information proposed by the article, situates the information within a context, and gives the reader the ability to locate further information on a given topic. Wikipedia is, inherent in its use as a publicly edited encyclopedia, reliant on an ample supply of sources to give it some means of truthfulness… Without it, Wikipedia would be a groundless collection of assertions written by non-experts (as well as experts, but that information is given no special designation). It is clear that these sources are responsible for a large majority of the information contained on Wikipedia, but not every article is cited in the same way. Just because the information is taken from another place on the internet, book, speech, interview, or article, does not make it entirely correct. Sometimes information can be taken completely out of context or repurposed in a way that is biased or untruthful. Most of this fallacious information is  removed or remediated by professional Wikipedia editors, but sometimes such a practice is left up to the reader. How would the untrained eye be able to decipher between sources that are legitimate, and sources that are not?

For the purpose of this analysis, I use a Wikipedia article titled ‘Heath Chapel’. The article about the Heath Chapel, a chapel that was built in the 12^th century in Ludlow, England. The article is very short and strictly informational, electing to focus of the architecture and its brief history. There are very few religious statements made about the Chapel, other than that it was "the perfect example of a rich little Norman chapel" and a short reference made to a painting of “The Last Judgment” behind the altar. There are relatively no large topics of argumentation concerning the Heath Chapel, and it seems that the general population would have few reasons to maliciously portray or place a bias on the information in the article- as a result, the historic Heath Chapel seemed a good subject with ample sources in which we could analyze for legitimacy.

For an article of such short length, the article has a decent amount of sources- four, to be exact. 3 were websites, and one was a book. For all intents and purposes, we are going to assume the information proposed in the book format is legitimate, for I have no way to looking at the text online or handling the book myself. The other three sources were situated within the internet, but I will further split this into two sections: scholarly sources and questionable sources. 

The one questionable source I looked into was on a website called “The Churches of England;” a resource to find local Christian communities in England. The webpage held no information other than an address- not a picture, not a description, not a single word written about the history. The source seemed to only exist to bolster the Heath Chapel’s existence as a religious (and historically Christian) building. The webpage within of itself was not for scholarly uses, although the Wikipedia page does use it to correctly place the Heath Chapel in Ludlow, England. I have listed this website as questionable because there is no reason to believe that The Churches of England fact checks their information or shows how they retrieved it – if there was any information to be fact checked or retrieved. 

As I previously stated, some things that Wikipedia mentions a lot when speaking about ‘identifying reliable sources’ are poor reputations of fact checking, lack of editing, and self-published sources. This is not of a concern when looking at the remaining two scholarly sources used in the Heath Chapel article. One was the website for the National Heritage List England, one was British History Online, both of which are maintained by the government for a scholarly and educational purpose (shown by the designation of a “.uk” domain rather than “.com”). They are kept as records, which are to be updated as needed and checked for accuracy. Both sources list their own sources as well, to prove their own legitimacy. Furthermore, both websites include much more information about the Heath Chapel than is contained in the Wikipedia article, which leads me to lead some information was purposefully left out to leave the Wikipedia strictly factual and untouched by any bias which may have been contained in it’s history. After fact checking the two sources (yes, the Wikipedia article, English Heritage List and British History Online agreed that the Heath Chapel is supported by buttresses and the communion rails were built in the 17^th century), these two websites have proved the legitimacy of their information. Wikipedia possibly includes both of these scholarly sources, which contain such similar information, to further elaborate the truthfulness of the information. 

So, ¾ of the articles sources are trustworthy and well-respected… But how is that information applied?  Is it utilized in a way that is truthful and honest? The writers of the articles are not creating an emotional argument as much as they are presenting logical information- as Jones would think of it, an appeal relying strictly on ethos and logos would be unbalanced and would eventually falter. In this case, the argument would have to rely on fallacies in order to prove any sort of point. However, the writers of the articles strive to situate the argument within the lower stases- that of definition- leaving the job of questioning value and policy to those who use their information. The use of fallacies, or questions of value at all, are rendered useless. Referring back to the title of this post, Wikipedia entirely had the ability to promulgate fallacious information- but makes a large attempt to stop these fictitious and biased stories from entering the web. The rest is left up to us, an active and engaged reader. The article about the Heath Chapel remains a reliable source of information, fulfilling the very purpose it was created for.

And Kaufer Saves The Day!

After the state of the union address this past Tuesday, Obama’s comments about gun violence elicited many responses- responses that The New Yorker was no afraid to provide. An article, written by Amy Davidson, focuses on the tension that exists between Obama and the Republicans during the address about the exact topic that has been smarting for the past couple months. Davidson asserts her idea that Obama’s main concern during the state of the union address was gun control. Davidson’s argument seems ethical enough, but when looking closely at her diction and choice of topics- is it really?

Jones likes to specify that an ethical argument focuses on grounded reasoning, forfeiting it’s need to rely on fallacies. Kaufer, on the other hand, emphasizes the need to connect the rhetor’s argument with his/her values in order to pass any judgment of ethics or solutions. Concerning these idea, Davidson’s argument is sound- which, for a Magazine that is so often known for its leftist and liberal tendencies, may be surprising to some. Davidson explains, quite explicitly at times, how Obama’s stance on guns and control is vestige of his overarching concerns for fairness and safety. She also explains how this clashes with the republican values of tradition. Davidson’s article may stray off topic towards the middle, focusing on other parts of Obama’s speech rather than the idea of gun control, but her argument remains sound. She presents both sides of the argument, does not utilize words that may incite emotions, and does not overly rely on one cannons. If her text was reduced to its skeleton, and Jones suggests, it would still be able to stand.

One word that perpetuated Davidson’s article was her use of the word “gun control.” If anything would elicit concern about her ethics, it would be the connotations attached to the use of that single world. In a very subtle and sneaky way, it can work to undermine a person’s preconceived notions. This is analogous to McGee’s idea of ideographs- and in this case, the ideograph “gun control” stands for the values of caring and safety. By constantly repeating the word in this context (although there is no feasible alternative), Davidson can do much to sway your opinion on gun control laws. Does that make it unethical- or good, tactful argumentation?

I encountered a similar situation as Davidson the other day, when I was doing a very girly thing and was shopping. My friend was on the hunt for a long sleeved dress for a wedding, which is apparently a very hard clothing option to find in the middle of winter. Alas, I found a long sleeved dress- and fell in love with it right away. I was unable to give the dress up to my friend, who actually needed it. She argued that she was the one who had a use for the dress, and I argued that I had seen it first and It was, therefore, mine. After a while, I was able to identify just why this argument happened: my friends valued the practicality of the dress, while I valued the idea of owning something so beautiful. After recognizing this, I was able to come to a solution- My friend could borrow the dress for the wedding, as long as it was returned to my closet afterwards. This appeased both factions, and the day was saved!

Jones and Kaufer’s ideas on public policy and its argumentation are valuable not only in a political sense, but also in daily life. And any day I can relate Obama’s concerns to those of a 20-something girl shopping for a dress, I am a happy girl!

Arguement - Ethics = Anne Coulter

Original Anne Coulter Article
Editing and Mitigated Anne Coulter Article

Upon reading Anne Coulter’s “Why Liberals Behave The Way They Do,” I was almost astonished me how conservative and sensational her piece was. Coulter’s vicious attacks and assertions about the Democratic party commits a myriad of fallacies- which were utilized (most likely unbeknownst to Coulter) because her argument does not rely on sound reason and justification. Instead, she writes about an unbalanced focus on the wrong-doings of Democrats, and needs to make fallacious points in order to create an argument. I noticed that Coulter breaks Jones’ rules 1, 2, and 5 (among others) by failing to demonstrate/prove her examples are correct, proposing straw man arguments, ad hominem attacks and, most of all, straying off topic. 

To that note, Coulter loses focus on the main point of her essay, the Democratic mob mentality, to point out the shortcomings of the Democratic Party. I feel that this is the reason Coulter relies on such heavy-handed techniques to argue her point; she is unable to attach it to a larger value. This gives her paper the feel and characteristics of a simple, embellished list. She abuses the deductive reasoning scheme by not providing a conclusion. Jones’ explains how the use of deductive reasoning can create a logical and strong response in the audience. However, the lack of a valid conclusion (or attachment to a meaning that is valuable to her audience) in Coulter’s piece renders her text a simple hateful and reticent assertion.

Like Jones says, there is a large difference in being logical and being truthful. Coulter is logical, meaning that her assertions make sense, but are they truthful? That is one thing, among many others, that I wanted to change about this text; its truthfulness. I wanted to be able to keep her own position and deductive organization of her paper, but create a stases shift- from causal to that of value. Much inspired by Kaufer, I also worked to realize the overarching values that caused her to write the way she does. By realizing her values, I would then be able to edit her paper with a sensibility and soundness that it currently lacks. As a Democrat, this would prove incredibly difficult for me. 

Much of Coulter’s reasoning is derived from her diction. She asserts that Democrats are always mob-like, value rotten medical care, and that liberals stare in blank incomprehension. The use of these words harbors hatred, and although Coulter may feel a very strong distrust towards Democrats, these words should not be used when trying to sway an audience using ethical persuasion. My first edit was to comb the entire essay and remove flagrant and irate adjectives used. Before I erased them from the text, I judged whether or not the word held a purpose, other than to incite anger. If it did, I simply changed it to a slightly more rational synonym. For example, in the sentence “…Democratic voters simply by repeating that Republicans are…” I replaced the word repeating with the word saying. If I was unable replace a word, I deleted it. I deleted the likes of the words disastrous, bitter, squalor, hate and kill.

If the word necessitated deletion, it was often the case that the entire sentence was fallacious as well. These statements required me to editing not only for diction and syntax, but for overarching themes as well. I worked to focus the text on understanding rather than accusing, and mobs rather than democrats. Democrats then became examples, rather than the main thesis. This changes Coulter’s text for the better because she writes as is only members of the Democratic Party are prone to tradition and togetherness, not Republicans. Republicans have, and will, foster a mob as well- and this is why I narrowed the focus of her text on how mobs are negative for America, not simply the presence of a Democratic society. As I tried to maintain Kaufer’s idea to identify an overarching idea/value (not losing America’s integrity in the face of a mass populace) in Coulter’s work, it became difficult. Coulter’s essay is inherently conservative and I did not want to lose that. 

I took the liberty to delete a passage from Le Bon, which Coulter used out of context. “If "democracies possessed the power they wield today at the time of the invention of mechanical looms or of the introduction of steam-power and of railways, the realization of these inventions would have been impossible." When placed in the context of Coulter’s Republican rant, Le Bon’s words are given an entirely new meaning. For a moment I desired to erase the entire paragraph about the industrial revolution, but then decided it was possible to show an attachment to her thesis about the mob mentality. I then wrote “Had a mob, tied to tradition, tried to ruin those discoveries- where would we be today?” and used it in lieu of Le Bon’s quote. I believe it maintains the same assertions, but focuses on mobs rather than Democrats.

My main difficulty was trying to not defend democrats or sounding too wishy-washy. You may notice that my edited version of Coulter’s paper  is significantly shorter than her original version. That is because I rejected Coutler’s short, choppy, journalistic/report format in favor of a narrative version (with longer paragraph). This not only helped it all flow, but the audience could then understand how all of the examples are interconnected. For example, one of Coutler’s unedited paragraphs was “When Social Security was enacted in 1935, the average lifespan was 61.7 years. Today, it's almost 79 and rising. But liberals believe the age at which people can begin collecting Social Security must never, ever be changed, even to save Social Security itself.” After editing, I combined the aforementioned statement with others similar to it to not only give it some context, but attach value to it. The point of mentioning Social Security was then to show how this stagnation can be attributed to mobs, not about Democrats. I feel that the resulting edited text successfully shifted stases (from causal to value) and helped give Coulter’s text an unblurred focus.

WORKS CITED

Jones, Rebecca. “Finding the Good Argument, or Why Bother with Logic?” Writing Spaces: Readings on Writing, Volume 1. Ed. Charles Lowe and Pavel Zemliansky. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor P, 2012. Available online via WAC Clearinghouse at http://wac.colostate.edu/books/writingspaces1/.

Fahnestock, Jeanne and Marie Secor. "The Stases in Scientific and Literary Argument." Written Communication 5.4 (Oct 1988): 427-443.

Kaufer, David S. “A Plan for Teaching the Devlopment of Original Policy Arguments.” College Composition and Communication 35.1 (Feb 1984): 57-70.

a remix of a remix of a remix of a remix of

Copyright is a word that many people know, few people pay attention to, have heard stories about and use on a daily basis in their public lives… But can have severe consequences. It has evolved, over time, to influence almost everything we do. How we learn, what we create, even how we think is somehow touched by this concept of ‘copyright’. It almost seems preposterous that something as artificial as the idea of ‘ownership’ could direct something so innately human as the idea of ‘creation’… But copyright was not always meant to incite images of court battles and million dollar lawsuits over simple images and sounds. In its original form, copyright’s purpose was to inspire creativity, Now, rather than protecting an artist’s work and making sure they are compensated, it does nearly the opposite- it protects companies rights to maintaining brand integrity while inhibiting the common person’s freedom. Copyright, as it functions in the corporate world, is a beehive of jargon, exceptions, complicated rules and dollar signs. Such a designation has nearly been rendered useless as people now explore the furthest extent of the public eye, fair use, and remixing. In the sphere of public domain, copyright functions differently in its overarching values- which seem to favor personal creativity over than personal accountability.

Remixing, like that of copyright, is not a new term. Even if the composer is unaware of their remixing, it does not deny the composition’s existence. I, as a remixer in an academic and artistic sense, am acutely aware of how people can look at a common object, recognize its flaws, and redesign it with a completely renewed sense of being. I like to think of this almost as a tangible stasis shift- extending the use of an object to a new audience, to fulfill a new purpose. This happens to furniture, architecture, to the ever-changing style of clothes, to technology, to everything. These stasis shifts are the source of all things new, and these new things (provided they are vastly different from the original) are protected under copyright laws. However, when these new things are ideas, the subject of ownership become nuanced- How do you own an idea? 

Idea come in all shapes and sizes, but when concerning blogs, ideas are most commonly portrayed using words. However, these words Blog cannot be touched. For the most part they are free, with a couple few maintaining a profit from the selling of advertising spaces. A majority of blogs are for personal use, but a few fill an informative or educational niche. These few blogs reside in a gray, unexplored area of copyright. These bloggers are very rarely scientists and do not often publish their scientific findings on their online blogs. Rather, bloggers are a middle man, whose sole purpose lies in their ability to convey information to an online public. Inherent in these conversions are uses of intertext and recontextualization, which is blatant use of other’s materials. As long as it is properly cited, the writer should not find themselves in any legal trouble. But does this type of work necessitate citation? In theory, shouldn’t every sentence require a citation within a citation within a citation? It’s cite-ception!

Before I project my next statements, I would like to eclipse them with an assumption that most bloggers are not participating in their craft for the monetary value. Sure, some bloggers write as a constituent for their journalist job or to create a name within the business, but I find that many blog for some person exigence that it extended to others. By judging the nature of the blogging material as free, social (inviting response), remixable, and ultimately lawless, it is easy to categorize blog posts under fair use. The internet makes this duty incredibly easy to fulfill, as well as almost harkens this type of remixing into existence. With the existence of the internet, the possibility of a world where remixing can happen instantaneously, side-by-side, and can even skip stases is all too real. Copyright, in the public sphere, may be antiquated. 

These assertions are not necessarily legal, but I think they hold true when you consider work done in such a public sphere as an investment for the future. Don’t get me wrong- it is important to give credit where credit is due, as I have with Bazerman’s intertextuality, Fahnestock’s concept of Stases, and Danielle Devoss’s presentation on Copyright, but this seems to me to be a matter or respect rather than a matter of monetary value.

WORKS CITED

  Bazerman, Charles. “Intertextuality.” What Writing Does and How It Does It: And Introduction to Analyzing Texts and Textual Practice, Ed. Charles Bazerman and Paul Prior. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2004. 83-96. 

Devoss, Danielle. "Composition and Copyright." Florida State University,  11 Febuary  2013.

Fahnestock, Jeanne and Marie Secor. "The Stases in Scientific and Literary Argument." Written Communication 5.4 (Oct 1988): 427-443.

Jonesin' For The Right Path

Public Policy is an interesting subject to cover because not two people on this planet have the same background, values, or see life through the same terministic screens (if we were to dramatize the subject). This does not make it impossible, but incredibly difficult. How are we to know what solution to the problem is right? How do we separate this from all the other possibilities that are thrown at us? How do we, as people with our own biases, determine what takes priority and, most importantly- how do we communicate that? Jones and Kaufer take a good look at this question by indentifying, within ourselves, means to make arguments level and conceivable.

Jones takes a look at public policy through a historical lens. He immediately recognizes the public aspect of the art, and uses classical rhetoric as the means to judge how people go about creating their own argument (since classical rhetoric is inherent public, in that it could not be done without a group of white males to listen). He also distinguishes that previously discredited methods of rhetoric, such as the sophists, are recently gaining ground- detracting from our inborn sense of duality and extremism (right and wrong). Moreover, this shows that every method of argumentation has a purpose, but it requires the correct argument to remain effective.  He continues this theory by explaining that fallacies exist to bolster an argument that is severely lacking- so much so that it fails to stand on it’s own. Jones almost seems to claim that arguments that are not ethical are not real, in that they do to argue towards a genuine cause that is grounded in facts. This is where, what I think , Jones submits his most substantial: That these rules only hold true in a perfect world, where everyone is fair and cares about the subject at hand. “Even though our current media and political climate do not call for good argumentation, the guidelines to finding and creating it abound” (Jones 177). If an audience who was unversed in rhetoric and argumentation techniques were to face a logically sound and fundamentally stable argument- would they be able to recognize it?  When concerning the viability of an argument and not it’s inherent ‘goodness,’ I can’t help but feel that Jones is incorrect- the rules of fallacies should be flexible, for it is incredibly difficult to keep  an audience’s attention with logic when an opposing argument is using an extraordinary amount of pathos, or attacking ad hominem instead.

Kaufer, in my opinion, provides a much more useful view of argumentation (which does not sound like a reiteration of every rhetoric and public speaking class I’ve taken here at Florida State). In fact, when mentioning the text to one of my friends in the International Affairs major, he stated that he had read the paper for one of his classes as well and even recited what he remembered most- Kaufer’s method of transcending the stated “sides” and attaching them to an overarching theme- He uses the example of arguing against lowering the drinking age to 18 by attaching that reasoning to an overarching concern for human’s well-being. By doing this, we would then be able to construct a new solution which attempt to appease both sides of an argument. Kaufer does this in a nearly quantified way- when it is very difficult to attach ‘more’ value to one argument than another. This clearly assumes that these people actually, truly hold these ideals… If they do not, they would fail to be swayed by any heuristic that is provided to them.

Clearly, I like to focus on the applicability of these explanations of argument. It may be logical and sound, but if it is not effective in actually practice- why, then, it holds very little value to me as a public policy maker/articulator. Jones outlines the methods of argumentation from its very basics, while Kaufer focuses on the creation of a solution which; this involves both ends of the argumentation spectrum, the very basic and the transcendent. Despite that, the tasks that Jones and Kaufer outline are not simple. Kaufer explains in the concluding section of his text that this type of argumentation- nay, this type of processing information, takes a higher brain power than would arguing on a much simpler level. For that reason, arguments that find their solution through the level 4 and above, or are built according to the rules stated by Jones, are much more sound… in that they are crafted from a genuine concern for the issue at hand, rather than winning or losing.