Reflection

I've blogged for several years now (namely on my Tumblr, where I post short stories, artwork, and social commentaries). Blogging for my writing class has been a new experience, because I've had to blog about certain topics and issues-- not just what came to mind. Nevertheless, it's been a great experience. Because everyone else in my class blogged on the same things, it was nice to see and understand others' opinions regarding certain aspects of the world we live in. Furthermore, it was great being able to comment on others' posts and engage in conversations regarding their posts both on and outside of their blogs.

Blogging is very different from class discussions or formal writing in that it's far more relaxed. While bloggers must still maintain proper writing and grammar skills, blogging provides a venue for writers to express their ideas without worrying about necessarily persuading someone. While formal writing is often a persuasive endeavor, blogging is more about expressing ideas and opinions. Furthermore, blogging really doesn't involve the many drafts and revisions required of formal papers. Self-expression has little need to be so refined in blog posts.

I will certainly continue blogging in the future, especially on my Tumblr. It allows me to express myself in my own way and style, and it encourages me to explore myself and the world around me.

My own farewell artwork

Logical Fallacy - Cybersecurity Bills Article (CNN)

This article is about bills aimed to prevent cybersecutiy attacks that could compromise national security. While many valid claims are made, the following passage is a logical fallacy.

"We are incredibly vulnerable," he said. "If we don't make our policy makers think about this seriously, we'll be dealing with something like 9/11."

This is the slippery slope fallacy, which the Writing 140 course book defines as implying "that a small step in a certain direction, in personal choice or social policy, will inevitably lead one down a slippery slope toward ruin and disaster." 

That is exactly what this statement from the article is doing. It is suggesting that without the proposed legislation, our country will surely face a calamitous disaster on the scale of the September 11 terrorist attacks. Instead of admitting that there may be other solutions, the statement suggests that the only way to prevent such a disaster is to enact the proposed legislation. It is an unexplained, exaggerated prediction-- not responsible argumentation.

Examples of Activism via Digital Media

One specific example of activism via digital media is the use of Twitter for demonstrations in Iran. While some believe Twitter played an essential role in helping protestors gather and gain momentum, others say there was no such Twitter Revolution at all (see Malcolm Gladwell's piece in the New Yorker). They argue that it only appears Twitter played an essential role, because the West's primary way of finding out about the events was through the social networking site. Furthermore, they say most of the Tweets we see from the demonstrations are in English, which probably would not have created as much momentum as if the posts were in Farsi. This highlights a big issue with digital media in general-- it's very difficult to gauge the effect it has, especially in social activism. In the case of the Iran demonstrations, it is nearly impossible to discern what real effect Twitter had on the protests-- did we (the West) only find out about what was being tweeted? And, in that case, what was left out? How else did the demonstrations spread? Because it is impossible to find out whether or not a specific tweet or Facebook post actually had an effect on someone, it is difficult to gauge the effect of digital media on activism.

This is similar to the Kony 2012 campaign (see famous video). The video spread entirely through digital media, mainly Facebook and Twitter. Due to the way it spread, it is difficult to discern what effect it actually had on people, and whether people were really interested in what was going on. Facebook and Twitter make it so easy for people to simply "like" or "share" or "tweet" posts that it becomes almost meaningless. Furthermore, from my own observations, it appears Kony 2012 became more of a trend than a movement. It seemed to be cool to share the video, and if one didn't like or share it, others viewed it as insensitive or uncool. What is clear, though, is how quickly this trend died down. Not only did it become the target of numerous attacks on Invisible Children's goals and practices, people also just seemed to lose interest. The following graph from Trendistic, a site that follows Twitter trends, clearly illustrates how interest in Kony quickly disappeared.

Percentage of Twitter Tweets about Kony

What seems to be the issue is that solely advocating something through the internet, such as the Kony 2012 campaign, fails to keep the interest of people. Since so many people have access to digital media, and it is so easy to advertise one's wishes and desires, it becomes easy to overlook things that actually may have great significance, like Kony 2012. Furthermore, even if one does consider the Kony campaign of utmost importance, Facebook and Twitter make the campaign easy to forget by providing users with constant new, interesting information in the form of status updates, articles people post, etc.

This seems to be one of the biggest, if not the biggest, issues with digital media for social activism. It's just too hard to maintain people's interest for longer than the millisecond it takes them to "like" or "share" and image or video. In an effort to combat the SOPA/PIPA legislation, many websites, including Google, Wikipedia, and Tumblr, carried out "blackouts" which symbolized what said legislation could potentially do to the internet. Wikipedia's blackout actually made their pages unavailable for 24 hours. 

How will kids finish their homework??

While this certainly sparked the attention of millions of internet users, once the blackout day was over, most people soon forgot about the legislation. During the time of the blackout, many of my Facebook friends were discussing the SOPA/PIPA legislation. Unfortunately, I haven't seen a single post about it in the past couple months, while the legislation still hasn't come close to dying.

Ultimately, while digital media makes it very easy to gain the attention of many people, it really struggles to maintain their commitment to whatever cause is being advocated. 

Internet Activism

Recently, I watched a video advocating the Kony 2012 Campaign. The video was incredibly filmed and edited and certainly made an effort to appeal to the viewer's emotions. As suggested by those posting the video, I shared it to "spread awareness" and make the evils of Kony known amongst all my friends. Unfortunately, that's where it ended. At the time, all of my Facebook friends were talking about Kony 2012 and how important it was to spread the word. But, the wave of emotion and support suddenly disappeared, replaced by criticism regarding the organization behind the campaign, Invisible Children. The Kony 2012 campaign seems almost infamous now, with people critiquing its goals left and right and suggesting that there are better ways to go about the conflict than what Invisible Children is advocating.

It seems that internet activism often ends with "awareness." Awareness is always touted as imperative for creating change, however, awareness alone accomplishes very little. Sure, more people now know about Kony's horrific acts throughout Africa; however, how many people are actually doing something (or even what Invisible Children suggested) to fix the issue? Several of my friends, including myself, shared the video, but we have done nothing beyond simply being "aware" of the issue. The internet makes it so easy for us to simply click "share" or "like" on a video that we don't find a reason to go beyond those practices. Furthermore, internet activism often fosters support so quickly (videos going "viral") that organizations also very quickly come under the scrutiny of skeptics, as was the case with Kony 2012. 

Views on Wikipedia

After exploring Wikipedia's process of disseminated knowledge, I think I'm about as likely as before to rely on the website. I've realized that it is extremely reliable, as long as one makes sure the citations are legitimate (and there sure are a lot of citations... Wikipedia editors seem crazy about them, which is a good thing). Furthermore, there are many people editing Wikipedia pages with the goal of making the information more clear, easy to understand, and unbiased.

Unlike before, I now know of the treasure trove of information (and interesting debate) residing on the talk page, and I will definitely visit this page for articles I look at in the future, because it really illustrates how the article evolved and provides potentially useful information that may no longer be in the article itself. Reading the talk page also makes the material at hand far more interesting. Nevertheless, the page holds the danger of simply being a forum for people to express their opinions, which may or may not be accurate, and it can skew or bias the reader's view on the topic being studied.

Unfortunately, investigating Wikipedia's talk pages have somewhat turned me away from attempting to edit pages myself. Several of the current editors (especially those who have been editing for many years) seem arrogant and unwelcoming to new editors. This may be necessary to maintain Wikipedia's distinct style and presentation of information, but it discourages people like myself, who may have valuable insight to offer, from joining the conversation for fear of being shot down. If I do ever join the discussion, it will be regarding a topic I feel extremely knowledgable about and one which I can support with the masses of sources Wikipedia users so unwaveringly desire. 

Authoritative vs. Communal Acquisition of Knowledge

My history class last semester, The Ancient World (expert authority), prohibited the use of Wikipedia (communal acquisition of knowledge) for our research papers. Our professor and TAs suggested that Wikipedia was unreliable and riddled with errors regarding topics such as Athenian Democracy, the life of Julius Caesar, and so forth. However, most students including myself, found Wikipedia far more useful for these topics than other sources, not because Wikipedia was necessarily right, but because its phrasing and presentation were much easier to understand and follow than, say, a 1958 journal study on Greek myths and their contribution to democratic ideals. Yes, we ultimately used primary sources and journal articles as evidence in our papers, but to attain a basic understanding of the topic at hand, the majority of us first searched "Athenian Democracy" or "Julius Caesar" on Wikipedia for a broad, well structured group of information. After reading the Wikipedia article to understand the basics (which the website is almost always accurate about-- it is the minor details which are more likely to contain errors), we found ourselves better prepared to tackle the more complex primary sources and journal articles. Therefore, although ultimately we did not source Wikipedia for claims in our paper (or even the sources found at the bottom of Wikipedia articles), we used the website as a valuable stepping stone in our research.

I find communal acquisition of knowledge more useful, especially in the field of graphic design, which is a hobby of mine. Many graphic designers believe that the only way to get good at making images or designing websites is to take classes (expert authority) and read textbooks. While I have taken classes and used textbooks, which proved very effective at teaching concepts, I find the near infinite free knowledge regarding graphic design concepts (found in the form of Youtube videos made by professionals and amateurs alike, none of their credentials checked before publishing) far more interesting and useful. People online tend to use language that is easier to understand than that of the professionals. Furthermore, online videos (which are free) are far easier to access than expensive textbooks or classes. Due to the sheer number of amateur graphic designers, almost every concept you could ever think of is covered in a Youtube video, while this may not be the case in a time-limited class or page-limited book. 

Logical Fallacy - TSA Toddler Screening Article (CNN)

Original Article


The article is about how "A 2010 video of an airport screener patting down a 3-year-old boy in a wheelchair has become the latest Rorschach test of the public's attitude towards the TSA, pitting agency defenders against those who say the video shows the child being treated like a terrorist."


I found two logical fallacies in this article.


1. ""There is another human being putting their hands on my child. That is not acceptable," [the father] said. "If he was putting his hands on my child at McDonald's or anyplace else, we would immediately have him arrested and call the police.""


This is a non sequitur, which is "distinguished by reasoning or evidence that is exceptionally irrelevant to the claim being made" (Writ 140 Course Book). The father suggests that society would not accept if an older man touched a young child in a McDonalds, which is, of course, true. However, this incident did not take place at McDonalds; on the contrary, this occurred as a security measure at an airport, where it is common practice to pat down travelers. Honestly, an old man touching anyone at McDonalds would not be appropriate, so this father's McDonalds connection really suggests that pat-downs are wrong on anyone, which is not what he appears to be arguing. 


2. ""Totally unacceptable," wrote one YouTube commentator. "I look at the abject terror in this tiny child's eyes, and I know who caused it. I know who the terrorist is -- it's the creep in the blue shirt.""


This is a Youtube comment in response to the video of the pat-down, one of the two CNN highlights in the article. It is a hasty generalization which the Writing 140 Course Book defines as "a broad claim on the basis of narrow evidence, and sometimes on the basis of only one or two examples." The commenter suggests that just because of this one incident, the TSA agent is a "creep" and a "terrorist." This does not take into consideration that the agent is simply carrying out his job and that perhaps he didn't even make the decision to do the pat-down, but was instead told to. The comment takes one short incident and very harshly labels an individual and his entire character.