For the weblog:

Just provide a two paragraph summary like the example in the book (82-83). As you can see, one of these 2 paragraphs is devoted to the articulation of the main thesis and the supporting reasons that are invoked to back it up. The other paragraph shall be devoted to (depending on the argument) the argument’s awareness of the opposite point of view in the form either of explicit support for its underlying assumptions or response to counterarguments. As you know some argument pay attention to this aspect and some don’t hence my “depending on the argument.”

Ask the students to find fault with the argument (to critique it from a doubting perspective: find fault with its use evidence (logos), use of pathos (appeals to emotions), and attention or lack of attention to opposite viewpoints).

Students should refer to particular parts of the passage (page and paragraph cited with direct brief examples or quotations) with specificity to support their critique (otherwise it is pointless). This will be at most one paragraph long.

For the presentation:

Establish the argumentative conversation the argument is a part of (a contextual narrative that situates its main claim in a bigger context with counterarguments). To do this, you could articulate and briefly explain the counterargument to which this argument is a reaction.

Follow that up with a rhetorical analysis of the argument pointing out both its rhetorical strengths and its weaknesses. Restate the thesis and the mains reasons supporting it. Evaluate the evidence used in terms of STAR criteria (89-90). Evaluate the reliance on emotions (pathos) or Logos (use of logical and accurate reasoning, use of credible sources etc) and how these enhance or undermine the credibility of the writer for a larger audience.

Pick two of the best responses from the weblog and explain why they were the best!

Conclude your powerpoint presentation with a list of further questions!

Thursday, September 8, 2011

A False Wikipedia “Biography”

A False Wikipedia "Biography"
By: John Seigenthaler

ISSUE QUESTION: Should websites such as Wikipedia, Answers.com, and Reference.com be monitored for false information?

MY CLAIM: The owners of these websites should monitor information before it is published to eliminate public embarrassment from false or malicious information.

Because: John Seigenthaler thought that he would not be hurt my anything negative said about him but he was. (436)

Because: Representatives of Answers.com and Reference.com said their computers are programmed to copy data verbatim from Wikipedia, never checking whether it is false or factual. (437)

OPPOSING CLAIM: These websites should not be monitored and the reputation of others is not of issue.

Because: Wales insisted that his volunteer editors correct mistakes within minutes (437)

ENTHYMEME:

Claim: Websites such as Wikipedia, Answers.com, and Reference.com are unreliable sources for information.

Reason: Millions of people visit these sites daily for quick reference “facts,” composed and posted by people with no special expertise or knowledge—and sometimes by people with malice. (436)

GROUNDS:

• Directly quoted from Wikipedia, “John Seigenthaler Sr. was the assistant to Attorney General Robert Kennedy in the early 1960’s. For a brief time he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John and his brother, Bobby.”(436)

• The individual who posted this particular information had no connection or inside knowledge about Seigenthaler.
WARRANT: The publishing of offensive and false information is publicly embarrassing, hurtful, and can be misjudged; this issue needs to be controlled.

BACKING:

• The story that Seigenthaler tells is very personal to him. (436)

• John Seigenthaler states “I thought I was beyond surprise or hurt at
anything negative said about me. I was wrong.”

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT:

Websites such as Wikipedia, Answers.com, and Reference.com have been in use for many years. They are designed for individuals to post information whether it is accurate or false. These individuals may also post false information out of malice. The people “employed” by these sites, Wikipedia for example, are volunteers. These volunteers are those who edit the information that is published on the website; still not insuring that the information is completely accurate.

John Seigenthaler was a Journalist for the Nashville Tennessean newspaper. In a recent post on Wikipedia, Seigenthaler was falsely accused of being involved in the assassination of John F. Kennedy and his brother Bobby. John had never been hurt by anything negative slandering his name until this “biography” was posted. He attempted to find the “biographer” but was only led to an IP (Internet Protocol) number provided by Wikipedia which only sent him on a wild goose chase. Knowledge of Bellsouth being the individual’s Internet provider was the only knowledge he had. However, Bellsouth has a policy that protects the identity of their customers and John would not receive the name of the person who posted this false information unless he filed a lawsuit and was given a court subpoena. After multiple meetings and interviews, executives of these websites have now removed the false content about John Seigenthaler at his request. But they do not know, and cannot find out, who wrote this “biography”.

Posted by at

8 comments:

  1. TaspiaSeptember 8, 2011 at 11:49 AM

    I believe, these web-cites should be monitored daily by the admins for false information. The Admins should report it on a daily-basis so that anything fallacious can be removed or corrected immediately. Such web sources as Wikipedia, Answers.com, and Reference.com are one of the most updated and visited cites and public tends to go visit such web cites for any information that's needed at the moment. So,us public surely wouldn't want to perceive anything that's erroneous.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Jenna IbertSeptember 8, 2011 at 1:47 PM

    Personally, I have to agree with the piece due to the fact that wikipedia.com as well as answers.com and reference.com allow for anyone to write anything they would like. The situation that happened with John Seigenthaler is very real, and is a major reason many teachers do not allow their students to use wikipedia.com for their writing and research assignments. One piece of false information could not only ruin someone’s reputation or destroy facts, but it is also jeopardizing student’s work. I do not believe there are many counterarguments however, one could argue that they should be able to use their first amendment rights—in this case freedom of speech. The Internet is a fairly public place, and most people look at it as an outlet to express their thoughts. Many people abuse their freedom of expressing their thoughts, which is ruining sources such as wikipedia for students, bloggers, and your average computer user.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Olivia WatkinsSeptember 8, 2011 at 2:15 PM

    I would have to agree with the article when it states these suggested websites are not reliable when it comes to accurate research. I have been guilty of using these websites for quick facts on things, but I still know that they possibly have the wrong information. I think that websites like wikipedia should be monitored closely because they are used so much through out the web and people actually think the information is correct. This leads to the on going fight of the wrong information being put out into the public eye. It is common for articles to be false because I have stumbled upon some in the past. Many people are abusing something that could be very resourceful for the world. When the day comes that wikipedia is monitored, I know I will be one happy person because of the valuable information I could use from it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Adrianne BosworthSeptember 8, 2011 at 2:27 PM

    I believe these sites should be monitored in some way. Although some information posted on these cites is factual, there is also information on the sites that is not. The non-factual information may therefore be viewed as one's opinion, not necessarily the truth. Some people post opinions agreeing with the information already provided while others post opinions disregarding the information or the feelings of the person for whom the opinion is about. The person being "attacked", the person the bad opinion is about, is then given a bad representation because of one individual's opinion about them. Wikipedia and other cites open to public editing should be monitored at all times to protect the good of everyone.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Meredith LesterSeptember 8, 2011 at 3:58 PM

    Most everyone knows that wikipedia is not a trusted website. Teachers at school say not to use wikipedia. I guess some people do not know this though. I think this resource should clearly say its created by anyone that is willing to create it. For Instance at the top webpage where it says wikipedia, it should something along the lines of this, " created by anyone, or the facts on this webpage may not be true) in bold print. If the website had a saying like this at the top, then there would be no need to monitor it, yet this website does not clearly say this, so it should be monitored, so people don't learn false information and people like, John Seigenthaler are not accused of false things.

    ReplyDelete
  6. AnonymousSeptember 8, 2011 at 4:01 PM

    Wikipedia, Answer.com, and reference.com are some of the most visited sites for information. When you go online or through a book in order to find information you assume that the information given is factual. Therefore, i believe these websites should be monitored. It is very unfortunate what happened to John Seigenthaler and it is because someone did not monitor or check the facts before posting it. There are some many things that can be put on the internet that is why i think if you can control what is real and what isn't you should take the time to check it.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Krista LaFontSeptember 8, 2011 at 7:14 PM

    I agree with the article that these sites are to not be trusted. When you go online to look for a fact those are the first places that pop up. These websites should be monitored to make sure that they are factual. It is already so easy to get false information that they should take the time to get the facts.

    ReplyDelete
  8. AnonymousSeptember 13, 2011 at 3:26 PM

    There is no doubt that what is on the internet can not be taken as 100% truthful. As people search online they should be aware of this. Most wikipedia users are aware that the site contains information which is edited by ordinary people. Though these websites must take responsibility for the things posted on them, i do not think that 24 hour monitoring is neccessary. The main use of these sites is to search for quick references and any information should not be accountable as the truth.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)