MWP3 Articles 4 & 5 Summaries with Supporting Quotations

Article 4 Summary:
In his article, Sundquist examines the history and impact of race theory on modern science and how scientists and philosophers such as Darwin and Blumenbach contributed to the scientific study of race.  While Blumenbach is generally regarded as an extremely open-minded humanitarian considering the era of his work, Darwin's blatant racism and white-supremacist beliefs are revealed, and their long-reaching effects are examined in full.  Blumenbach is often regarded in an ironic light, since his open-minded and unifying theory on human races was taken and distorted to match the biased and racist studies of future generations, but in contrast, Darwin is often credited as being the forefather of race theory, leading to the rigorous search for the biological difference between races.

Supporting Quotations:
-"The skewed reasoning of Social Darwinism led to one conclusion as to how to resolve the “race problem”: eliminate the biologically inferior races from the genetic pool" (Sundquist 242).
-"While ethnologists and phrenologists were searching for scientific validation for their pre-formed views of black inferiority, Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution revolutionized biological study" (Sundquist 244).

Article 5 Summary:
In their work, Zuckerman and Armelagos re-examine the work of a L.S. Penrose, whose use of the term "mongolism" nearly botched his career, labeling him a racist.  They mention a conference held by UNESCO in 1950 that addressed the re-defining of the term 'race' in the scientific realm, where Penrose's work helped steer it in the anti-racist direction of being a cultural, historical difference, not a biological or genetic one.  However, this does not stand much in the light of his usage of Darwin's racial terminology, thus negating any positive regard for Penrose.  They also examine the studies and individuals whose thoughts and lives influenced the before and after of the 1950 decision, including Blumenbach, Darwin, and others.  They discuss how Penrose's racial use of "mongolism" may not have had much to do with the re-designation of race, but the endless search for the race gene may have not died out as much as it has if things hadn't played out the way they did.

Supporting Quotations:
-"Darwin and Wallace’s work on evolutionary theory...generated the widely accepted view that race formation was a distant and closed episode in human history, that the races were fixed categories, and that their distinguishing features were non-adaptive, neutral traits" (Zuckerman and Armelagos 15).
-"Despite increasing dissatisfaction with the old, pre-WWII racial science and recognition of the inaccuracies in the genetic rationale underlying eugenics and the craniometric and blood type data in anthropology, generating a coherent replacement for racial science and consensus on a new definition of race proved difficult for the scientific community" (Zuckerman and Armelagos 23).

(MWP3 Precis 5) Rhetorical Precis on "L.S. Penrose and the Study of Race"

In chapter 1, "L.S. Penrose and the Study of Race", of their book on modern anthropology, Molly K. Zuckerman and George J. Armelagos reflect on the work of 20th-century anthropologist L.S. Penrose and how his studies, controversial as they are, have indirectly impacted the methodology of the study of race in many scientific fields, and how the modern scientific concept of race is in part a result of his ideology.  They first study the evolution of the idea of race through the 1800s and 1900s, and how controversial works done by Penrose in the late 1900s were debated on his use of "mongolism" led to a meeting in the science community which redefined the idea of race not as a genetic or biological difference but as a difference in population, culture, and environment.  They write for the purpose of revealing his often negatively-imbued works as stepping stones to a more positive sphere in scientific thinking.  Their chapter is aimed at those who are not familiar with the connection between Penrose's studies and the anthropological concept of race.

Article Link: http://www.anthropology.emory.edu/FACULTY/ANTGA/Web%20Site/Pages/documents/PenroseChapter.pdf

MLA Citation:

Zuckerman, Molly K.; Armelagos, George J. "L.S. Penrose and the Study of Race". Department of 
          Anthropology, Emery University, Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.A. (2009).  Web. 15 April 2012.

Annotation:
The specific histories and definitions discussed in this article will give precise and directional qualities to the literature review section, as well as provide a broad sense of how the scientific field should view the idea of race, along with the specific events a persons that the authors believe led to the current layout.

(MWP3 Precis 4) Rhetorical Precis on "The Meaning of Race in the DNA Era: Science, History, and the Law"

In Christian B. Sundquist's article "The Meaning of Race in the DNA Era: Science, History, and the Law", the author asserts a claim that the scientific classification and social segregation of several different peoples into racial subcategories was never 'inevitable' or 'socially justified', claiming that the separation of different races, even in the scientific front, is merely a result of archaic belief systems that now have researchers on two-century-long wild goose chases for the "race gene".   Sundquist starts by defining terms such as "race", "sociobiology", and "anthropology", giving several definitions in many contexts, and then follows up by examining the work of famous scientists such as Blumenbach and Darwin, and how their beliefs and studies have influenced the world's thinking for generations.  His purpose is to counter the perceived justification that many scientists have in searching for a biological difference between different races, since they do such under false pretenses, and such work will only prove to further separate different cultures on not only the social platform but on the professional and scientific platforms as well.  He writes for those either involved in those fields or affected by those fields who also share his ideology that the "race race" is merely a sham reflecting 18th- and 19th-century closed-minded and misinterpreted beliefs and values.

Article Link: http://www.temple.edu/law/tjstel/2008/fall/Sundquist.pdf

MLA Citation:
Sundquist, Christian B. "The Meaning of Race in the DNA Era: Science, History, and the Law." Sundquist 
          Macro (February 3rd 2009).  Web. 13 April 2012.

Annotation:
Sunquist's work will give a background to the setting for potential race theory studies in modern science, showing both a before and after of race theory and how it may still be studied under different names, and how the works of famous theorists may have directly or indirectly contributed to both the race theory of the past and the racial studies of the present.

MWP3 Article 3 Summary with Supporting Quotations

Article 3 Summary:
Bhopal writes an article dis-empowering the age-old origin of the belief that there is a scientific distinction between one ethnicity and another--the birthplace of the concept of "race" scientifically--instilled by 18th-century anthropologist Blumenbach.  He identifies the key misconceptions in Blumenbach's work as the classification of the races from their skull shapes and patterns, and how this was taken as an actually genetic rift between peoples of different continents and cultures, an unfortunate and misrepresented observations that has negatively impacted scientific thinking, studying, and progression in the three centuries since Blumenbach's thesis was presented.  Bhopal believes that the only way to create an unbiased path for future science to travel upon is to dispel this discriminatory origin and to conduct studies under the assumption that, aside from cultural differences, all races are constituents of the human race.  He also writes in response to the common misinterpretation that Blumenbach  intended for the negative stereotypes to be produced from his work, counterarguing that Blumenbach was actually trying to write in order to establish that all races were once species; later scientists such as Darwin chose to pick what they liked from his work to bend it to their construed theories. 


Quotations:
-"[Blumenbach] dismissed leucoplakia, a condition characterised by loss of skin pigmentation, as merely a disease and not even a variety of humanity."
-"Blumenbach’s work was a turning point in the history of race and science, although it was nearly 200 years before the lessons were properly absorbed"

(MWP3 Precis 3) Rhetorical Precis on "The beautiful skull and Blumenbach's errors: the birth of the scientific concept of race"

In his article "The beautiful skull and Blumenbach's errors: the birth of the scientific topic of race" (2007), Raj Bhopal re-examines one of the most influential scientists on the age-old hunt for a scientific difference between races, claiming that Blumenbach's discriminatory goal of defining different races in order to rank them still exists in many professional fields today, biasing the opinions and works of many scientists.  He first talks about Blumenbach's life, about his different studies, and about other contributions he made to several scientists aside from his famous work in anthropology; he then examines the "five races" defined by Blumenbach and discusses how the purposeful separations of different ethnicities has given birth to the majority of not all scientific racism in the last three centuries.  Bhopal writes to reveal a foundation in scientific racism and the reason for the perceived gap between ethnicities that provides a working reason to search for the "biological difference" between difference races.  He writes for those in the biology, anthropology, and other related fields who wish to understand the origins of the racism inherent in too many modern sciences.

Article Link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2151154/

MLA Citation:

Bhopal, Raj. "The beautiful skull and Blumenbach's errors: the birth of the scientific topic of race." BMJ 
           Publishing group ltd (2007).  Web. 11 April 2012.

Annotation:
This article will allow a quick and easy synthesis of both Blumenbach's work and personal philosophy into the paper, allowing both the irony of his successors' work and the fatal errors made on his behalf to be better introduced during the literature review, and providing with yet another solid scientific model that contributes to modern day race theory.

MWP3 Working Thesis

Many current scientific models contain remnants of racial discrimination from the time of their induction into scholarly practices, and remain unnoticed, negatively influencing the studies and works of several potentially respectable scientists; studies such as sociobiology, biology, anthropology, and many others are based off of models from some famous scientists such as Darwin and some other unsung scientists from the 19th and 20th centuries, and the models and theories that are affected must be re-evaluated and potentially edited in an unbiased and professional fashion.

MWP3 Articles 1 & 2 Summaries with Supporting Quotations

Article 1 summary:
Fairchild writes in response to the works of a scientist by the name of J. Phillip Rushton, who he felt had incorporated racist beliefs, theories, and practices inherent from the studies of Darwin into common sociobiology.  He discusses how there are several factors underlying both Darwin and Rushton's writings and studies that reflect an unapologetic white supremacist standpoint, leading to Rushton's belief that there were actual biological differences between ethnicity, and that factors such as intelligence dwindled between "caucazoids, mongaloids, and negroids".  This lead many sociobiology texts and articles to contain traces of data that claimed certain ethnicities contained a more thorough inherent factor of agreeableness, adaptability, and intelligence.  Fairchild linked this to the original beliefs of Darwin, whose entire theory of evolution was based on the idea that dark-skinned people are "remnant to gorillas".

Quotations:
-"An examination of the assumptions underlying Rushton's reveals that the theoretical orientation is, in fact, unreliable...the basic assumption of Darwinian influence is teleological...the data bases that are used as evidence are frequently misrepresented" (Fairchild 101).
-"The review of sociobiological models of "racial" differences reveals a number of fatal flaws in their theoretical assumptions and interpretations of empirical databases" (Fairchild 108)

Article 2 summary:
Audrey and Brian Smedley write about how racist beliefs have been incorporated into many professional settings, causing leading scientists to study in taboo fields such as "chromosomal differences between one ethnicity and another", searching for an actually biological or anatomical difference between races, trying to expand different members of the human race to entirely different species.  They claim that this would cause racism to become completely commonplace, perhaps even scientifically reasonable.  They write about how the core of racism is in the study of anthropology, and how different cultures and beliefs have always separated people in their studies and practices, causing modern scientists to not see the problem in studying these harmful and offensive topics.

Quotations:
-"Ethnicity and culture are related phenomena and bear no intrinsic connection to human biological variations or race" (Smedley and Smedley 17)
-"The genetic conception of race appeared in the mid-20th century and remains today as a definition or working hypothesis for many scholars" (Smedley and Smedley 19)

(MWP3 Precis 2) Rhetorical Precis on "Race as Biology is Fiction, Racism as a Social Problem is Real"

In their article "Race as Biology is Fiction, Racism as a Social Problem is Real", Audrey and Brian D. Smedley break down the common misconception that there is a distinguishable difference between race biologically, and assert that the idea that every ethnicity actually comprises a completely different species is becoming more and more common among closed-minded, biased scientists in many scientific fields.  They first address the several racist beliefs specifically, and then talk about how race has to be addressed by anthropology rather than by biology, asserting that race shouldn't be considered as a difference in DNA or genomes, but instead by ethnic backgrounds, beliefs, and history.  The Smedleys right in order to reconcile for the racist papers and studies of their peers, hoping to reconfigure the research paradigm in biology in respect to race.  They right for those who are affected by or are interested in the racist practices and studies in the biology field in the last few decades.

Article Link: http://www.history.ox.ac.uk/hsmt/courses_reading/dundergraduate/authority_of_nature/week_8/smedley.pdf

MLA Citation:
Smedley, Audrey; Smedley, Brian D. "Race as Biology is Fiction, Racism as a Social Problem is Real."  
           Virginia Commonwealth University Institute of Medicine (2005).  Web. 8 April 2012.

Annotation:
The Smedley's article will give a foundation for the argument against race theory, establishing literature review and quotations that directly state opposition to the idea that there is a scientific difference among each race, which the global and humanitarian connection of a human race, and thus provides a means of introducing the working thesis.

(MWP3 Precis 1) Rhetorical Precis on "Scientific Racism: The Cloak of Objectivity"

In his article "Scientific Racism: The Cloak of Objectivity", Halford H. Fairchild debunks another scientist's expansion on a race-base social heirarchy darwinism, revealing an underlying, flawed method of thinking present in many scientists in fields such as evolution and eugenics still today.  He first points out the different racial profiling statistics present in Darwin's research, and then shows how they affected the works and findings of J. Phillip Rushton's studies of sociobiology, breaking it down into separate biases and flaws.  He writes in order to preserve the actual scientific facts and values in the two works of both Darwin and Rushton, skimming off the layer of racism and crooked opinions that cling to the surface.  His intended audience is those seeking scientific knowledge in these constantly expanding fields that do not contain the widespread biases present from the original forefathers.

Article Link: http://bernard.pitzer.edu/~hfairchi/pdf/ScientificRacism.pdf

MLA Citation:
Fairchild, Halford H. "Scientific Racism: The Cloak of Objectivity." Journal of Social Issues 47.3 (1991):
          101-115. Web. 5 April 2012.

Annotation:
The article's precise focus on the works of one particular scientist and his racially tense theories will provide an example of how the misinterpretation or incorporation of the works of historic theorists such as Blumenbach and Darwin are still being used in modern race theory, and how the idea that scientists no longer strive to find the biological or genetic differences between races may not be completely true.

Chemistry/Science-related Racism Topics

1.) Current scientific models containing racism (ex: Charles Darwin was a white supremacist)
2.) Psychological and chemical causes of race-sensative phobias and behaviors
3.) Racist pseudoscience sects
4.) Race-specific grants from Chemistry organizations
5.) Eugenics (and related racist beliefs)
6.) International outsourcing by chemical companies
7.) Famous scientists/chemists who were held back or suffered because of racism
8.) History of popular sciences such as chemistry and how they are intertwined with racism
9.) Racist sciences from the past (such as nazi science in WWII)
10.) Famous racist scientists and how their beliefs still affect the science community

MWP2 Outline with Introduction Paragraph

INTRO

Online social networking has become a norm in today’s flowering technological prowess; socializing teens and corporations alike take care of their personal and professional business on sites where it is efficient to digitally connect and communicate effectively—but as the plethora of social networking sites expand, adding thousands of users daily, a new issue is becoming more and more debated—could our privacy, to both our personal and professional information, be at risk? It’s true that because of the recent and explosive expansion of online socialization that a vast amount of private information has become available digitally, a click away for the people that know their way around the internet, but perhaps it isn’t just strangers and ‘creepers’ that we have to worry about getting our information; according to one study, today’s online conditions have “made it necessary to consider the invasion of privacy by corporations” (Barnes 6).  Online ad generators that run marketing scams directly off of massive databanks of information harvested from social network users, given openly from the network administrators themselves—this has led to a newly posed question: even if you change your privacy settings so that only friends can see your information, should online social networks still be allowed to garner your information to their ad-generating comrades to redirect it back to you and your friends, and maybe even other people? People generally share not only photos of themselves, but also their hometown, birthday, e-mail, phone number, who they are friends with, and even where they are by address at given intervals of the day, giving a multitude of angles and precedents that social ad generators could use to their advantage, making it so advertisers “can co-opt the power of an individual's social network to target advertising and engage their audience” (Tucker 2).  So, stalking and harassing aside, who is at fault for online privacy infringements, what are possible resolutions, and who should be responsible for putting them into practice?

DEFINITION

SocialAd

Ad Generators

Terms of Agreement

Privacy Settings

LITERATURE REVIEW

*83% of facebook users say it “helps them interact… with friends” (Debatin 93)

            *“Only 69% of respondents indicated that they had actually changed their default privacy settings” (Debatin 93)

            *Predicted “Facebook users have a limited understanding of privacy settings

in social network services” and, consequently, will probably not even attempt to take advantage of their privacy settings options (Debatin 93)

            *“Social networking tools have become indespensible for teenagers, who often think their lives are private as long as their parents are not reading their journals (Barnes 4)

            *Limiting your privacy settings so that the information you post is “friends-only”, will, according to one study, exert “audience control over social network site disclosures” (Stutzman and Kramer-Duffield 2)

            *Whether someone generally goes “friends-only” without being prompted depends on several factors such as how many friends they have, what their educational setting is, and their purposes in using Facebook (Stutzman and Kramer-Duffield 6)

            *“Due to the persistent digital nature of Facebook, utterances that would normally go unrecorded are stored and replicated in the sociotechnical system” (Stutzman and Kramer-Duffield 8)

*“In particular, social networks will be able to exploit their considerable inherent network effects to enlarge their share of advertising dollar       (Tucker 24)

            *“Social norms also impact users’ choices to disclose or protect information (Strater and Lipford 115)

            *“Participants with private profiles reported that they had restricted their profiles due to previous privacy intrusions on either Facebook or MySpace”, including strangers obtaining either their phone number or e-mail, and persistently harassing a user until they had to permanently change their number or e-mail; even though they changed their privacy settings afterward, a strong indication that there was something in their  power that they could have done to prevent the intrusion, they still blame the social networks for letting such events happen (Strater and Lipford 116)

ARGUMENT/ANALYSIS/PROPOSAL

*edit rough draft*

CONCLUSION

*EDIT*      If there was this collaborative effort between stricter, more efficient privacy regulations by the social networking sites and the distinct awareness and restricted posting and availability of information on behalf of the users, both by not posting what they don’t want accessed and by changing their privacy settings to better suit their desires without infringing on their relationship-cultivating uses of the sites, then perhaps the endless game of blame-throwing would end and online privacy would no longer be an issue in an age where tools like networking can be rewarding and profitable if done correctly.

MWP2 Proposal Argument (Argument and Proposal sections) Rough Draft

            While claims are generally made in opposition to the social networking sites alone, it isn’t just the sites who are at fault; not only are users willing to share large amounts of their information online and then just expect a free site to keep it unexplainably safe from them, but most of them will not change their privacy settings upon making a profile, or even be willing to update their current settings (Debatin 93; Stutzman and Kramer Duffield 6).  Social networking cites, however, aren’t completely innocent; while they shouldn’t be expected to single-handedly keep everyone’s privacy locked away indefinitely from the exact people individuals don’t want accessing their information, their current privacy regulations are still not one-hundred percent user-friendly.  While social networking cites have close reigns on ad generators that target specific interests of one individual, even the administrators don’t know the extent of information available to databases that use “SocialAds”, which target a person’s friend-list, the interests of individuals on the friends list, and the person’s interests, cross-referencing the information to create a unique ad that mentions one’s friend and a mutual interest (Tucker  12).  If they don’t want to appear to be the bad guys in the ongoing debate, they should at least try to come up with new regulations in which they know how their users’ information is being used and exactly what information those users are comfortable with giving away: but can a user really give the consent for an ad generator to use a friend’s information, even if that friend has also agreed to the privacy policy of the social network?

In any case, online privacy is not an issue that is easily approached; however, according to one study, there are three potential ways to address an issue in online privacy: social, technical, and legal solutions (Barnes 7).  While the social solutions involve people taking it upon themselves to become educated on the extent of privacy regulations and the methods and functionality of ad generators and other groups that have access to personal information, technical and legal solutions require either schools and other official groups or organizations to try to educate people, or to have the social networks themselves take measures to avoid privacy leaks (Barnes 7-8).  But it would take a combined effort of at least two of those entities to truly make a difference.  If sites like Facebook stepped in to resolve issues such as ease of access and extent of information available to ad generators, by putting stricter regulations on the companies and corporations they allow to generate ads, made it possible for people to report ads if they felt they were infringing on a privacy agreement or accessing information their current privacy settings should not make available, and made the sign-up process include an essay response or quick quiz assuring that the person producing the profile was actually aware of what was going to happen to their private information and was assured, personally, what they would be comfortable with posting, it would be a large step forward.  But the sties can’t fix the problem single-handed; people would have to compliment this measure by taking it upon themselves to become educated, and, knowing that it’s the young people who generally end up the victims of privacy regulations on social networking sites, this is not likely to happen; that means that it will probably have to be a sponsored, non-profit campaign, much like the ones putting up meth awareness posters on the billboards on the side of interstates, and perhaps even the ones that are behind posting the non-intrusive ads on sites such as Facebook, that ultimately create some sort of program that gently but efficiently makes information on privacy and smart networking available to those who would otherwise suffer an invasion on their personal information.  If there was this collaborative effort between stricter, more efficient privacy regulations by the social networking sites and the distinct awareness and restricted posting and availability of information on behalf of the users, both by not posting what they don’t want accessed and by changing their privacy settings to better suit their desires without infringing on their relationship-cultivating uses of the sites, then perhaps the endless game of blame-throwing would end and online privacy would no longer be an issue in an age where tools like networking can be rewarding and profitable if done correctly.

(MWP2 Precis 5) Rhetorical Precis on "Strategies and Struggles with Privacy in an Online Social Networking Community"

In their article, "Strategies and Struggles with Privacy in an Online Social Networking Community", Katherine Strater and Heather Richter Lipford attempt to describe the recent social and cultural developments among youths in respect to online social networking and cyber-communications and how they are redefining young people's perspective of privacy, in order to establish a medium or means to effictively use those developments to strive for more positive and productive means of communication  and privacy maintenance in the future.  They first establish common privacy strategies encorporated by young people who do most of their casual socializing online, and then reconfigure their habits into more productive methods, giving advice on how to use social networking sites without breaching one's own privacy and accidentaly self-sabotaging.  They write in order to reveal the most productive and effective methods of online socializing and how it can either make or break future communication methods both professionally and casually.  They write for those who are interested in communications and privacy regulations on social networking sites.

Article Link: http://www.bcs.org/upload/pdf/ewic_hc08_v1_paper11.pdf

MLA Citation:

Strater, Katherine; Richer Lipford, Heather . Strategies and Struggles with Privacy in an Online Social 
        Networking Community. Department of Psychology/Department of Software and Information Systems,
        University of North Carolina at Charlotte, n.d. Web. 9 March 2012.


Annotation:
The article's rich coverage on resolutions for online privacy infringement allowed the formation of a more thorough and efficient proposal.

(MWP2 Precis 4) Rhetorical Precis on "Social Advertising"

In "Social Advertising", Catherine Tucker asserts that the method of social network-based advertising has proved to be one of the most effective methods in online advertisement in the last decade, and that even the social networks are uncertain of the extent of information available to the data banks in their quest to find ways to illicit responses from online consumers.  She first gives a brief explanation of how the ad generators target their consumers, and then she gives results from a conducted field experiment on the most common information taken, and what genders, ages, and interests they look for when trying to find the most responsive targets.  She writes in order to convey the common strategies, purposes, and effectiveness of social advertising and to show the extent of information being analyzed and how it effects the privacy of both the users of online social networks and the networks themselves.  Her intended audience are social network users or creators interested in the truth behind the ads appearing on the sites.

Article Link: http://www.isb.edu/isbweb/isbcms/faculty/upload/Doc1322012953.pdf

MLA Citation:

Tucker, Catherine. Social Advertising. MIT Sloan School of Management, Cambridge, MA (25 January
        2012): Web. 9 March 2012.


Annotation:
The article's thorough and definitive information on online ad generators and SocialAd online advertising supplied a series of quotes and citations that better defined and reviewed the advertising-centered branch of the online privacy infringement issue.

(MWP2 Precis 3) Rhetorical Precis on "Friends Only: Examining a Privacy-Enhancing Behavior on Facebook"

In Fred Stutzman and Jacob Kramer-Duffield's artcicle "Friends Only: Examining a Privacy-Enhancing Behavior on Facebook", Stutzman and Kramer-Duffield explore the average undergraduate's methods, views, and practices when it comes to online social networking, exploring perceived audiences and potential consequences, and ultimately suggesting a "friends-only audience" approach to networking.  They first describe how to go "friends only", and measures and benefits of doing so, and then explore, statistically, the difference between positive and negative posting, and how there are layers of audiences, each layer with a different expectancy to what they are looking for, and how those using social networking cites should either go friends-only, or be willing to only post things considered appropriate by the outermost layer, such as school faculty members, potential employers, family and legal figures.  They strive to develop a common understanding of the social repercussions of networking, and how students can take several different measures to reach a "friends-only" approach and dispel the common misconception that it is the social network's duty to keep people's information from those they do not want to view it, even though they have the power to do it themselves.  Their intended audience are those who use social networking sites and those who are involved or interested in the issue of online privacy.

Article Link: http://fredstutzman.com/tmp/Stutzman_CHI2010.pdf

MLA Citation:

Stutzman, Fred; Kramer-Duffield, Jacob. Friends Only: Examing a Privacy-Enhancing Behavior on 
        Facebook. School of Information and Life Science, University of North Caronlina at Chapel Hill, n.d.
        Web. 9 March 2012.


Annotation:
The article's definition of "friends-only" and description of different kinds of online privacy regulations and conditions under different privacy settings on online social networks helped to form a better-supported proposal.

Working Thesis for MWP2

Because of the rising number of claims that the insecure methods of information sharing on social networking sites, and of the majority of claims being made against the sites themselves as if they are to be held entirely accountable, there should be a collaborative effort from users of social networking sites and the network admins of said sites alike to distribute and make available prerequisite information on social networking privacy, and how the site plans to use and/or share personal information of its users with advocates and ad generators; people should take it upon themselves to become aware of this information, and sites should provide a disclaimer or perhaps even a quiz to make sure someone knows exactly what they are signing up for when they join a site.

Note: the previous post is a precis on an article that supports my claim that most of the blame currently being generated for online privacy is directed at the social networking cites.

(MWP2 Precis 2) Precis on "A Privacy Paradox: Social Networking in the United States"

In her article "A Privacy Paradox: Social Networking in the United States", Susan B. Barnes redirects the hatred and blame being directed at social networking sites toward the teenagers and young adults who use them, claiming that they sign up for the sites and publish personal information, and are then outraged when peers, parents, and the teachers and faculty from their schools see it and they are to suffer the consequences.  She first gives examples of the kinds of private information generally posted by members of social networking sites, and then continues to give pros and cons and establish the differences between social and private information, and how the line between the two is become hazed as this generations technology continually advances; she concludes by answering an earlier established question of whether or not "we actually have privacy in this day and age, digitally", and how she thinks it will take collaborative effort, maybe more so from the users' side, to truly establish cyber-privacy.  Her purpose is to convey that the social networking sites are not evil, and are not doing a single thing they don't tell users they will do when they sign up, and that people need to be more educated on what kinds of information they should or shouldn't, or even want, to put up on their profile.  Her intended audience includes both scholars interested in the issue of online privacy, users of social networks, and those involved directly with the ongoing battle between upset users and online social network admins.

Article Link: http://www.mendeley.com/research/a-privacy-paradox-social-networking-in-the-united-states/#

MLA Citation:

Barnes, Susan B. "A Privacy Paradox: Social Networking in the United States". First Monday 11.9 (2006):
         11-15. Web. 5 March 2012.

Annotation:
This article's coverage on interviews with particular sections of often-disgruntled users such as students and parents/teachers on online social network supplied a means to put a face on the group that is causing the online privacy issue to get out of hand, giving quotes that summarize the issue as it applies to the majority of those involved.

Zoom in on Online Pravicy in Association with Social Networking

Most people are unaware of the extent to which people have access to their personal information on social networking sites, and how that information is being processed.  Most of the information, such as personal interests, favorite movies, games and TV shows, and even the town you live in or the place you are hanging out for the afternoon is given to a multitude of online data processors or individuals and re-routed straight back to your homepage for targeted marketing and other purposes, being stored in databases by people worldwide; most people think to blame the social networking cites, even though it was their own choice to create an account and share the information, and they should consider issues such as this before signing up for a site, and definitely take a portion of the blame for any negative repercussions.  Nearly everyone in this day and age have created a Facebook or a MySpace or a twitter, or even a YouTube or Google account—all of them have at least some personal information on their profile, and all of it is available to a multitude of people if they know where to look.  A combination of people willing to share extremely personal information and the social networking sites not giving a 'disclaimer' of sorts telling people exactly how much of their information will be free game for advertisements, scammers, or even hackers or stalkers has caused social networking privacy to become a major public issue.  People have tried to protest Facebook several times, but it isn't protest that will solve the problem--it's not just Facebook that has to change, but people need to realize that if they're willing to type down such things as personal interests, birth dates, or the locations they are currently at every ten minutes, people other than their friends will be able to see it, and if they don't like it then they shouldn't post it.  If people don't begin to realize the true core of the problem, internet censorship will be soon be considered the cause, and the functionality and availability of online information could be at stake because of the misinformation of these sites' users.  Users should educate themselves and be aware of what personal information they are providing to the sites and who can see it—they should be aware that posting something controversial online is like saying something controversial into a microphone in a large room: you shouldn't be angry at the microphone for being turned on, you should be angry at yourself for being dumb enough to speak into it in the first place; also, social networking sites should begin giving a disclaimer, something much more thorough than a fine-print, read-it-if-you-want, agree to terms and conditions page—they should have people be tested, asking them if they actually know exactly how open their personal information is to become, and exactly how many people are going to have access to it and who they are, so only those who are comfortable saying everything into the microphone actually join the site.

Rhetorical Precis on Good Reasons Chapter 13

In Chapter 13 of  Good Reasons  by Lester Faigley and Jack Selzer, "Proposal Arguments", the authors describe the constituent elements, functionality, and writing process behind proposal arguments, and provide examples of proposal arguments written by professionals and students.  They initially describe what a proposal argument is, discussing how they work and how their theses differ from normal argumentative papers--then they give a step-by-step writing process for proposal arguments, topping it off with a professional proposal argument and then a student example.  Faigley and Selzer intend to describe the purpose, procedure, and layout associated with both writing and reading proposal arguments when taking rhetoric-based classes.  Their intended audience is students in English classes that require them to write a proposal argument as part of the curriculum. 

(MWP2 Precis 1) Rhetorical Precis on "Facebook and Online Privacy: Attitudes, Behaviors, and Unintended Consequences"

In "Facebook and Online Privacy: Attitudes, Behaviors, and Unintended Consequences", Bernhard Debatin, Jannette P. Lovejoy, Ann-Kathrin Horn and Brittany N. Hughes investigate Facebook users' perception and awareness of online privacy issues by conducting a survey on over a hundred undergraduates and following up with eight face-to-face interviews with some of the surveyed individuals in an attempt to show that, even though most users of online social networks like Facebook think they know about privacy issues and take measures to avoid being exploited, do not usually know the extent of privacy invasion on the internet. They first review the questions asked in their survey, which included time spent on facebook and activities performed, as well as insight on whether they felt these activities were harmful to their online privacy; they followed up with a recap of their eight interviews, and then closed the paper with a discussion on what mistakes those in the interviews made and how they could be avoided by other facebook users.  They intend to disclose common habits and behaviors displayed by members of online social networks, and which ones can be harmful or dangerous to ones personal information and privacy even if they seem harmless at first glance.  Their intended audience are those interested in the topic of online security and privacy, or online social network members in general.

Article Link: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01494.x/full

MLA Citation:
Debatin, Bernhard; Lovejoy, Jannette P.; Horn, Ann-Kathrin; Hughes, Brittany N. "Facebook and Online
        Privacy: Attitudes, Behaviors, and Unintended Consequences". Journal of Computer-Mediated 
        Communication 15.1 (17 November 2009): 83-108. Web. 2 March 2012.

Annotation:
This article's thorough coverage of the average social network user's understanding of privacy settings and networks' terms was used in order to establish points that redirect the confrontation and blame away from the social networking sites and toward the users and general online ignorance.

Annotated Bilbliography on 8 catfish noodling sources

n.a.. Why "No" to Noodling. Missouri Department of Conservation, 2012. Web.
      16 February 2012 Annotation: A non-scholarly article, giving reasons from the Missouri Department of Conservation on why noodling is illegal in the state of Missouri and how its legality would effect the economy.

Hunt, Kevin M.; Hutt, Clifford P.. Characteristics of Texas Catfish Anglers and their Catch and Management Preferences. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Inland Fisheries Division, December 2010. Web.
      15 February 2012
Annotation: A Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Survey results summary, giving the survey questions, their purposes, and the responses to them from Texas catfish anglers. Its relevance lies in a portion of questions aimed at responses to catfish noodling, showing how most catfish anglers in Texas felt about the practice and giving insight to the probability of legality there in the next few years.

Tatarenkov, Audrey; Barreto, Felipe; Winkelman, Dana L.; Avise, John C.. Genetic Monogamy of the Channel Catfish, Ictalurus Punctatus, a Species with Uni-parental Nest Guarding. Copeia, 2004. Web.
      15 February 2012
Annotation: An article on the breeding habits of channel catfish, which briefly covers noodling, since it was a skill used to electronically mark the catfish being studied.

Rochon, Bryon. Activity Involvement and Place Attachment of Fish Giggers in the Missouri Ozarks. University of Missouri-Columbia, July 2010. Web.
      15 February 2012
Annotation: An article delving into the background of the heritage of catfish noodling and how it is sociologically inherited by the groups that practice it.

Hayden, Sterling C.. The Social and Cultural Aspects of Paddlefish Snagglers in the Lake of the Ozarks. Graduate School of Natural Resources, University of Missouri-Columbia, December 2009. Web.
      14 February 2012
Annotation: An article that gives a background of the average gender, age, and education level of the common Missouri catfish noodler, as well as other characteristics, giving a general image of who a noodler is and why they noodle.

Morgan, Mark. The Social Hierarchy of Fishing: Myth or Reality. Routledge: Taylor & Francis Group, 2006. Web.
      14 February 2012
Annotation: An article that dispels several unprofessional stereotypes associated with Missouri catfish noodlers, trying to erase the line between "normal, accepted angler" and "bad, stupid noodler."

Grigsby, Mary. Masculine Identity Work Among Missouri Noodlers: Community Providers, Pleasure Seeking Comrades and Family Men, and Tough Courageous Men. Southern Rural Sociological Association, 2009. Web.
      13 February 2012
Annotation: A sociological and psychological breakdown of the reason, practice, and tradition of noodling and how it is a Missouri reflection of the "big, tough man" that every male apparently wishes to be. Talks about how noodling is mainly a family tradition, and whether it is legal or illegal it will probably be practiced in the same numbers for many years to come.


Reitz, Ronald A.; Travnichek, Vincent H.. Angler Opinions Regarding Handfishing for Catfish in Missouri. Proc. Annu. Conf. Southeast Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, 2005. Web.
      12 February 2012
Annotation: A summary of survey results regarding questions specifically geared toward Missouri anglers' opinions toward catfish noodling, ultimately giving a statistical analysis of whether noodling will be legalized any time soon.

(MWP1 Precis 8) Rhetorical Precis on "Why 'No' to Noodling" *Non-scholarly source*

In "Why 'no' to Noodling" (2012), a Q&A about the legality and effects of catfish noodling in missouri submitted online by the Missouri Department of Conservation, the department secures their assertions that catfish noodling is dangerous to their economy, since the two types of catfish most frequently noodled are both among their top five state-wide game-fish.  They first answer questions regarding what noodling actually is, so that the reader can establish the background to the issue, and then provide answer to why it is illegal, studies that have shown its effect on catfish populations (which they did not link), and the fiscal statistics resting on legal catfish angling in the state of Missouri.  They intend to elaborate on their laws and regulations to clear up any misconceptions about noodling in their state. Their intended audience are those who want legal reasons or scientific explanations to why they can't noodle, or those who just wish to learn what noodling is.

Website: http://mdc.mo.gov/fishing/regulations/sport-fish-regulations/why-no-noodling

MLA Citation:
n.a.. Why "No" to Noodling. Missouri Department of Conservation, 2012. Web.
     16 February 2012

(MWP1 Precis 7) Rhetorical Precis on "Characteristics of Texas Catfish Anglers and their Catch and Management Preferences--Data Section"

(NOTE: The article used was a State Parks Department's Survey results submission. The section I am writing the Precis on is just the data section, showing percentages on responses made by Texas anglers toward Catfish Noodling. The Section starts on Page 58, and the tables containing noodling-related questions is on 81)


In their survey results to "Characteristics of Texas Catfish Anglers and their Catch and Management Preferences" (December 2010), Kevin M. Hunt and Clifford P. Hutt identify the opinions toward Catfish angling's importance and methods, as well as statistics on catfish caught in respect to size and age, as well as frequency of angling for the average catfisher.  They first list the results for the age, gender, and ethnicity of the anglers, as well as how important they deem cat fishing and their favorite methods; then, they inquired about their opinions on different catfish methods, the methods they used themselves, and ultimately the average size and number of catfish caught.  They write for the purpose of giving a state-wide background on the popularity, necessity, and methods of cat fishing, as well as the opinions of those who take part in it, who they are, and the way they take part in the sport.  Their intended audience contains anybody who wishes to know data about cat fishing in Texas.


Article: https://hdclel.org/MDWFP/Miscellaneous/2010TexasCatfishReport.pdf 
Pages 58-81


MLA Citation:
Hunt, Kevin M.; Hutt, Clifford P.. Characteristics of Texas Catfish Anglers and their Catch and Management Preferences. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Indland Fisheries Division, December 2010. Web.
     15 February 2012

(MWP1 Precis 6) Rhetorical Precis on "Genetic Monogomy in the Channel Catfish"

In their article "Genetic Monogamy of the Channel Catfish, Ictalurus Punctatus, a Species with Uniparental Nest Guarding", Audrey Tatarenkov, Felipe Barreto, Dana L. Winkelman, and John C. Avise research the parental systems regarding the care of catfish eggs after they are laid, by keeping tabs on several nests and their resident catfish.  After identifying the kind of "families" the catfish construct, they had catfish noodlers take out the main protectors (since only one male catfish stayed at each nest most of the time) so they could count the amount of eggs in each mass and then examine the catfish that were in charge of guarding it.  They write in order to disclose a new theory that there is actually lifelong monogomy among catfish, and that they form families that are not so different from human families, having several generations located in any given nest.  Their intended audience are biology researches specifically interested in the species of catfish located in water channels in the southern United States.

Article: http://faculty.sites.uci.edu/johncavise/files/2011/03/275-Copeia-channel-catfish.pdf

MLA Citation:
Tatarenkov, Audrey; Barreto, Felipe; Winkelman, Dana L.; Avise, John C.. Genetic Monogamy of the Channel Catfish, Ictalurus Punctatus, a Species with Uniparental Nest Guarding. Copeia, 2004. Web.
     15 February 2012

(MWP1 Precis 5) Rhetorical Precis on "Activity Involvement and Place Attatchment of Fish Giggers in the Missouri Ozarks--Literature Review"

(NOTE: The article used was a thesis. The section I am writing the Precis on is just the "fishing literature", a subsection of the literature review section, ranging from pages 10-14 of the linked article)

In Fishing Literature Review from "Activity Involvement and Place Attatchment of Fish Giggers in the Missouri Ozarks" (July 2010), Bryon Rochon illustrates the different subcategories of anglers ingrained into the heritage and history of the families located near the Ozarks. He first reviews the history of fishing in the region as far back as 1970, and then breaks down the data from several previous surveys taken by local anglers and identifies the different practices outside of contemporary fishing, mainly noodling. He writes in order to establish a background for the individuals who are the subject of his paper, and how their background was formed and conveyed by previous researchers. His intended audience are individuals doing research on fishing, fishers, or groups of fishers in the area.

Article: https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/9274/research.pdf?sequence=3
Pages 10-14

MLA Citation:
Rochon, Bryon. Activity Involvement and Place Attatchment of Fish Giggers in the Missouri Ozarks. University of Missouri-Columbia, July 2010. Web.
     15 February 2012

(MWP1 Precis 4) Rhetorical Precis on "The Social and Cultural Aspects of Paddlefish Snagglers--Results"

(NOTE: The article used was a master thesis. The section I am writing the Precis on is just the results section, ranging from pages 29-44 of the linked article)

In Sterling C. Hayden's Thesis Results on "The Social and Cultural Aspects of Paddlefish Snagglers in the Lake of the Ozarks" (December 2009), Hayden constructs an image of the average "Paddlefish Snaggler" (Catfish Noodler), using roughly 500 survey results. He revealed that, using his survey results, where noodlers are from (94% from Missouri), how old they are (almost exclusively in their 40's), thier gender (90% male), their educational and employment statistics (almost all completed high school, 11% college, and over 50% made over $40,000 wages), and their supposed effects on the natural reproduction of catfish populations. He intended to provide an image for the type of people involved in the noodling community, and to eliminate some unfortunate myths and stereotypes. His intended audience were those involved or interested in the legal battle for noodling's legality.

Article:

https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/5348/research.pdf?sequence=3
Pages 29-44

MLA Citation:
Hayden, Sterling C.. The Social and Cultural Aspects of Paddlefish Snagglers in the Lake of the Ozarks. Graduate School of Natural Resources, University of Missouri-Columbia, December 2009. Web.
     14 February 2012

(MWP1 Precis 3) Rhetorical Precis on "The Social Hierarchy of Fishing: Myth or Reality?"

In "The Social Hierarchy of Fishing: Myth or Reality?" (2006), Mark Morgan determines that there is actually no demographic, psychological, or justifiable difference between what are known as "high-class anglers", who catch fish using modern equipment, and those who noodle, outside of a social stigma that has grown against them. He first conducts a survey of people classified as "high-class anglers" and "handfishers" using a set of twelve identifying, opposing characteristics, and then breaks down the reasons for high-class anglers' bad opinions toward noodlers in respect to each characteristic individually. He intends to reveal that the idea of the "red-neck, uneducated low-life" is actually just a stereotype that has grown from commercial anger and clashes in individuals' family culture, and to convey that the average noodler is actually just that: average. His intended is most likely those exploring the issue who want to see the truth behind whether noodlers are actually strange, scandalous country folk or just normal people.

Article: http://www.ncd-afs.org/Pages/34/RP%20Morgan%202006.pdf


MLA Citation:
Morgan, Mark. The Social Hierarchy of Fishing: Myth or Reality. Routledge: Taylor & Francis Group, 2006. Web.
     14 February 2012

(MWP1 Precis 2) Rhetorical Precis on "Masculine Identity..."

In her acticle "Masculine Identity Work Among Missouri Noodlers: Community Providers, Pleasure Seeking Comrades And Family Men, And Tough Courageous Men" (2009), Mary Grigsby asserts that the culture behind catfish noodling is actually an ingrained way of expressing masculinity among those who practice it in the United State's southern states. She first reseraches the psychology and general age/gender groups that practice catfish, concluding on the middle-aged male majority and their mindset when it comes to the activity. She writes in order to give a psychological or scientific reason for the popularity of catfish noodling and the cultural and social reasons for its practice. Her intended audience consists of those who are looking for a background taken from a fresh perspective on the issue, looking at the sport from a different stance than the legal one which is most often encountered.

Article: http://www.ag.auburn.edu/auxiliary/srsa/pages/Articles/SRS%202009%2024%202%20218-243.pdf?pagewanted=all

MLA Citation:
Grigsby, Mary.  Masculine Identity Work Among Missouri Noodlers: Community Providers, Pleasure Seeking Comrades and FAmily Men, and Tough Courageous Men. Southern Rural Sociological Association, 2009. Web.
     13 February 2012

Working Thesis for MWP1

Catfish noodling should be legalized in all states that harbor major catfishing because does not post a significant threat against the local catfish populations, and because the majority of hatred against catfish noodling is based on petty stereotypes and insufficient data and assumptions by those who do not understand the culture and heritage ingrained in the sport.

(MWP1 Precis 1) Rhetorical Precis on "Angler Opinions Regarding Handfishing for Catfish in Missouri"

Ronald A. Reitz and Vincent H. Travnichek, in their article "Angler Opinions Regarding Handfishing for Catfish in Missouri" (2005), investigate the opinions of groups of demographically determined anglers to determine the reasons, oppositions, support, and likelihood of catfish "noodling", or handfishing, legalization. They first describe their different categories of anglers: general, those who just fish, maybe not exclusively for catfish; catfish anglers, those who had fished specifically for catfish on at least one occasion within the last year; avid catfish anglers, those who had fished for catfish on several occasions within the last six months--they then discussed, dissected, and related the data they received from surveys to all these groups to explore the opinions, methods, and likelihood of legalization for catfish handfishing in Missouri. Reitz and Travnichek seek to bring a perhaps undisclosed issue into light and try to discuss it in a serious tone, illustrating the opinions on the issue from those who are most directly affected by it in order to give a realistic overview on its potential legality.  Anglers, legal professionals, or individuals who are personally interested in the issue and wish to expand their knowledge on its methods and legalization, as well as how positively it is regarded, are what their intended audience most likely consist of.

Article: http://www.sdafs.org/catfish/Literature/Angler%20Opinions%20Regarding%20Hand%20Fishing%20in%20Missouri.pdf

MLA Citation:
Reitz, Ronald A.; Travnichek, Vincent H.. Angler Opinions Regarding Handfishing for Catfish in Missouri. Proc. Annu. Conf. Southeast Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, 2005. Web.
      12 February 2012

Questions on Catfish Noodling

Catfish Noodling is the act of using your bare hands to catch catfish.
Questions:
1. Is it legal?
2. What is the general method of noodling?
3. What impact does it have on catfish populations?
4. Are there health risks?
5. What states are in conflict over it?
6. Where did it originate?
7. Are there currently legal battles for/against it?
8. Where is it popular?
9. Is it effective/innefective?
10. Who is generally interested? (age, gender, etc.)
11. Is it getting more/less popular with time?

Rhetorical Precis on Good Reasons Chapter 4

In Chapter 4, "Drafting and Revising Arguments", of Lester Faigley and Jack Selzer’s Good Reasons (2012), Faigley and Selzer assert different strategies on how to evaluate a thesis, discern reader attitudes, organize arguments, and proofread written arguments. They first explain how to clearly state and evaluate one's own thesis, followed by how to identify reader attitudes toward you, as the writer, and your topic; lastly, they break down a step-by-step on how to organize your argument and an outline of how to proofread both your own arguments as well as others. Faigley and Selzer write in order to give a clear and thorough guide and the follow-up to writing an article, supplying tips on how to effectively present everything from the introduction to the conclusion. Their intended audience is students who have just written an argumentative paper that wish to go back and proofread, making sure they presented and articulated their argument as well as possible.

Rhetorical Precis on Good Reasons Chapter 7

In Chapter 7 of Lester Faigley and Jack Selzer’s Good Reasons (2012), “Putting Good Reasons Into Action”, the authors list ways to effectively choose a purpose for writing an argument. They list common purposes, give an example, and list effective ways to incorporate you purpose into the writing so that the reader understands it. Faigley and Selzer intend to give insight on how to thoroughly analyze purpose and procedure behind writing arguments. Their intended audience is those being educated on writing argumentative research papers who want to know the best way to choose their topics.

Rhetorical Précis on "Digatal Sampling of Music and Copyrights..."

In "Digital Sampling of Music and Copyrights: is it infringement, fair use, or should we just flip a coin?" (December 2011) by Christopher C. Collie and Eric D. Gorman, the authors assert that, regardless of dispute over the legality of music sampling, a compromise should be attained between the music producers being sampled and budding artists in order to not stifle creativity or industry, tactfully weaving in a history of related court cases and a hypothetical example based on the works of a real artist recently affected by the issue.  Collie and Gorman begin by giving a light overview on the issues at hand, including the actual text behind the laws of copyright, distinguishing the difference between the copyright to a musical composition and the copyright of recorded works, and then describing fair use and how its legal use has been involved in court cases before the sampling issue; then they give a list of court cases--some between a company hosting a misspelled title for an mp3, and another between the band The Beastie Boys and a recording company they sampled from--and a legal proposal on how to peacefully resolve the issue, followed by a breakdown of how a court case might go with a hypothetical common artist both with and without their proposal being accepted.  They strive to end the dispute between companies that own copyrights and those artists who are trying to breathe new life into older works without siding with one group or the other, taking the approach of a subjective view with a balanced sense of justice and equality, trying to appease both the record companies and the artists while still ending the fiasco once and for all.  Their intended audience is most likely a wide range of people who take a particular interest in this matter, since they took a common, popular issue and wrote about it in a professional and scholarly way, trying to set a new standard by both adressing and resolving the issue peacefully.

Informal synthesis of 3 texts on plagiarism and music sampling

While I stated my opinion vicariously through the summary of the first two articles (which probably wasn't a very good thing to do in a summary...), I receieved a good amount of insight from the third article I chose, "Digital Sampling of Music and Copyright: is it infringement, fair use, or should we just flip a coin?" by Christopher C. Collie and Eric D. Gorman. They interested me by including a legal proposal toward the end of the paper that represented their method at the best way to solve the music sampling dispute--to cut a deal. They proposed that we should consider including a formula in law that, if an artist felt another artist's sampling of his work could be considered copyright infringment, could make amends for any harm done without causing the first artist to forfeit his work. For example, if a song was a minute long, and thirty seconds of it contained a drum track from a sampled piece, take 1/2 (30/60), and multiply it by one third, meaning that the sampled artist would take away a sixth of the money earned from that particular piece of music. I feel that, from what I've read, this sort of "deal" is probably the best solution to the sampling issue. Whether or not this generation has a problem keeping the definition of "plagiarism" in check, music sampling is a powerful and innovative method of expression, and shouldn't be stifled because of related issues, but rather encouraged in a way where nobody loses.

"Digital Music Sampling" and "Plagiarism Blurs Lines" Summary

While the two different sources talked about two topics that initially seemed unrelated, there was a common motif to both the pieces: that the idea of exchanging ideas is drastically different for this generation in both the creative and professional fields, due to progression in social technology. While the idea of plagiarism used to be very straightforward--if it's from a book that you didn't write, then don't take credit for it--the modern ease of attainment for relevent information has made it not-so-cut-and-dry.  While the radio show talked about how we may need to redefine terms of copyright to benefit the creativity of the country's youth, the article talked about how the creativity of today's youth may actually be waning, and the idea of copy and paste could much more appealing and quick than finding your own words to students; in fact, the difference may not even be clear to a handful of them.  But is it laziness that causes people to cut an paste music tracks to make a new collage that they could potentially take credit for? While it's debateable, the idea that the two go hand in hand may not need to be universal--while some rules need to be defined about what can or cannot be taken from the internet without proper citation, the same exact rules may not need to be "copied and pasted" into the music industry; perhaps, even if the two issues do resonate a common creed of the new generation, they need to be approached seperately to find what is needed to set both of them down the right path. Most of the guests on the talk show spoke positively about sampling music, but all the references in the article provided the vision of a new and potentially dangerous view on copyrights when it came to online sources. Ultimately, the articles joined to produce the idea that America's students may be finding new ways to produce creative works, but it may be a problem if their creative mindset bleeds into their professional views--whether or not sampling music is illegal or wrong, the idea of plagiarism will most likely need to be firmly laid down in the near future, or stripping lines from wikipedia pages could possibly be a new, innovative way to "breath new life into a research paper".

Rhetorical Précis on Good Reasons Chapter 3

     In Chapter 3 of Lester Faigley and Jack Selzer’s Good Reasons (2012), “Finding Reasons”, the authors discern the different key points in identifying, building, and supporting arguments, and break down components that make up the difference between what could be a good argument and a bad argument, or even an argument and something else entirely. They first explain how to identify an argument, both by distinguishing one in everyday conversation, and by telling the differences between one type of argument from another or a persuasive article versus an argumentative one; they then elaborate on different types of arguments and how to involve oneself in both others arguments and one’s own more effectively—things such as argument categories, how to analyze issues, how to read into, examine, and find evidence for arguments, and how to establish different kinds of standpoints or contributions to arguments were listed and discussed. Faigley and Selzer intend to emphasize to the reader that an argument is something that can be weighed, analyzed, broken down, and evaluated, and give textual examples and list major rules and factors in being able to do these things when reading or writing arguments. Their intended audience is those being educated on writing argumentative research papers, supplying them with different recipes and ingredients for identifying, defining, researching issues on, and writing or reading arguments.

Rhetorical Précis on Good Reasons Chapter 2

      In “Reading Arguments”, Chapter 2 of Lester Faigley and Jack Selzer’s Good Reasons (2012), the writers express that there are certain cardinal practices that can make reading arguments more effective, productive, and personally enlightening, and that these skills are essential to develop when learning to write one’s own arguments. Faigley and Selzer elaborate on these practices by giving advice on how to explore different viewpoints to create a well-rounded view on an issue, evaluate the work thoroughly in order to establish the author’s credibility, and lastly suggest to keep an eye out for logical and emotional fallacies, all while providing easy-to-understand and still relevant textual and visual examples. The authors strive to show the most effective ways to evaluate a written argument in order to better the learning processes students experience while they harness the skills to write arguments themselves. Their intended audience is students enrolled in courses requiring them to read and evaluate arguments about different controversial issues, which requires them to keep a level, unbiased opinion to maintain a scholarly poise.

The Shame of College Sports Summary from image-mapping notes

     The Shame of College Sports, by Taylor Branch, reveals the corrupt and malicious underside to the guiding forces of modern-day higher educational athletics.  It started by divulging the massive financial numbers supporting the media and corporations involved—and how the NCAA, the ‘mastermind’ behind the crooked foundations, generated 40-80 million dollars in revenue in recent years, along with the endorsement of multimillion-dollar-salaried coaches; the whole system thrives on “tribal” stakes.  Then it disintegrated some of the well-known founding myths, such as the transition to safer conduct out of concern for the athletes, or the idea that the success backing the sports industry in America is based off of its face-value of being a “Darwinian Struggle”, and not because of the exploitation and excessive use of loopholes by its captains.  Branch delved into the history of the NCAA’s evolution, from the later-regretted ideals of master manipulator and college drop-out Walter Byers and the early power granted to NCAA to pick and choose all the sports available on television, to the initiation of the “Restitution” law and the term “Student-Athlete”—both of which used fear, bureaucracy, and bribery to claim the majority of college athletic programs’ profits for of the NCAA.  The Student-Athlete “myth” used cyclical logic to state that even though an athlete didn’t have to be completely academically competent if they were just attending college for sports, they would still receive no compensation in the case of injury or death since they were just a student; on the other hand, the Restitution rule dictated that a student athlete was not allowed to have advisors—it stretched so far that most educational bodies were afraid to even communicate with those under investigation by the NCAA as if for fear of contamination. It was even later uncovered that the creation of these rules was for the sole purpose of the NCAA avoiding due process.  As the NCAA began to lose power through endorsement, it began to exploit the names and likenesses of popular college athletes, while simultaneously instating ludicrous rules that said athletes were not only not allowed to make any profit off of their identity, but were not even allowed to accept discounts or gifts on account of their popularity: those who did so were suspended from their respective sport. This made it so the NCAA could cultivate all the money it desired off of the identities of athletes under its jurisdiction, while the athletes would be punished for trying to make any profit at all—called the “Plantation Mentality”, a defense against its injustice was manned by Sonny Vaccaro, a former employee of the NCAA, and Michael Hausfeld, a lawyer, derived from several cases in which the NCAA was indirectly made legally untouchable while several student-athletes, the very ones responsible for the  NCAA’s inherent wealth, and their supporters were branded as troublemakers or law-breakers because of violations against the association’s conquest for greed.

Jane McGonigal's Speech: Gaming can make a better world

    Being a suitably dubbed "virtuoso gamer" myself, and the proud bearer of the "epic win face" on just about a daily basis, I found that I could connect easily to the speaker's sentiments--whether one agrees on the majority of the issues discussed or not, the main point that stuck out for me, since it seemed relatively universal, was the labeling of gamers as a "vast human resource"; it's truly a remarkable thought to ponder upon that there are around half a billion people worldwide that are honing this skill, even if the skills' worth is debatable.  McGonigal's breakdown of the four key components of the life skills adapted through online game-play was just about dead on, showing that there are social (the social fabric), philosophical (urgent optimism and epic meaning), and economic (blissful productivity) tributaries of gaming talents being accumulated world-wide, without the need of peers, teachers, or elders breathing down the necks of the youth to get these "epic wins" accomplished.  These are all reflections of real-life skills; the only difference is that they're not being invested into real life.  Whether one looks at gamers as hard-working, passionate virtuosos or lazy, good-for-nothing hooligans, it is without question that it would pay to try to adapt a way to redirect the intense interest that the individuals have in these fantasy worlds and project it onto the real world, potentially cultivating a whole new generation of human advancement.

Rhetorical Précis on Good Reasons Chapter 1

          In “Reading and Discovering Arguments”, Chapter 1 of Good Reasons, Fifth Edition (2012), Lester Faigley and Jack Selzer predicate that there are certain measures that can be taken to make argumentative writing more affective, informative, and credible, regardless of the purpose or conjecture of the content.  The authors reinforce their assertions by exploring different aspects of productive argumentation, initially by defining an argument in respect to writing, along with their role in college education and the expectations of college students in writing argumentative work, followed by how one can argue tactfully, responsibly, and respectfully, accompanied by an alternative way to subjectively view a written argument and how to establish credibility and the self-image desired of one’s readers.  Faigley and Selzer intend to summarize the elements of calculated argumentative writing in order to prepare the reader for college assignments that supplicate responsible and persuasive rhetorical elements, in order for the student to garner professionalism and technique in their written work.  There is an underlying yet potent intonation that the content of the chapter is intended for those enrolled in courses that center on the skills and concepts established, giving examples, lists and charts that break down the information into very textbook, direct portions that are easy to access and understand.

Birth of my blog (aka my first post): Another blog I found interesting 1/21/2012

     So the only way to browse other blogs on here, as far as I'm aware, is to click on an interest on your own profile and then pick through a haystack of other people that have similar interests. I assumed it wouldn't be an overly burdensome task to root out a blog that spoke to me if I followed the chemistry interest from my profile, although assumptions are rarely accurate. Through most of my browsing I saw nothing but blogs with strange and erratic names like "blog bot betty" or "the fantastic egg yolk man". I guess everyone is trying to be an individual; that may, after all, be the point of a blog. Actually, even including my blog of choice in the link below, I never actually saw a single blog about chemistry in any way... ah, well. The first profile to actually catch my eye was just named "Jeff". Simple. Straight to the point. I clicked it, and I found myself in the world of a self-proclaimed "neurotic screenwriter", who had one blog that was dedicated to a very casually written account of the end of the world.

     Pretty cool stuff.

Jeff's blog: http://iknowhowtheworldends.blogspot.com/?zx=612b593fe45708b