Analyzing Connections Between Different Sources

The two Wikipedia articles that I will be comparing and contrasting are “Kairos” and “Digital Rhetoric.”  Both of these are closely related to the topic of public discourse, especially in this electronic age.  The two above topics also feed into each other, seeing as that digital rhetoric is reliant on kairos in order to be successful and continuous.  Not only that, but the articles themselves are a matter of public discourse, seeing as that anyone can contribute to editing Wikipedia pages (so long as they have proper references and follow the guidelines).  Because of this, external participants can have a dialogue with others interested in the subject by providing expert opinions and links that perhaps other did not know of along with posting their opinions on the 'talk' pages associated with each article.  This delayed response gives all persons involved a chance to better themselves and others.

The layout of the two articles are similar in that they follow the basic layout of all Wikipedia pages.  For example, the column on the left is solely dedicated to reach different portions of Wikipedia with little connection to the article material.  The articles also have brief overviews of the topics at hand (also known as a "lead"), followed by a table of contents.  However, that is where the similarities end.

Of the two articles, the "Kairos" article is a better example of a well-defined Wikipedia page.  It provides illustrations of examples of kairos depicted from ancient times, and it carries a more professional tone than its counterpart.  The "Kairos" article is set up to be informative and yet understandable to the lay reader. It also gives the reader of the sense of time associated with kairos, sticking mainly with ancient Greece before transitioning to the modern definition of the word.  The "Digital Rhetoric" article, on the other hand, does not give such in depth information.  It lacks illustration; and though it has a number of sections, each one only contains a sentence or two of explanation.  The article appears to be pubescent, and although it gives a detailed definition of the topic, it does not supply much other information.  This could be because the "Digital Rhetoric" article is a thorough example of intertext. 

Porter, in his paper “Intertextuality and Discourse Community,” gave a thorough definition of what intertext is.  On page 35 of his paper he explains that “[The text’s] system of language, its grammar, its lexicon, drag along numerous bits and pieces-- traces of history so that the text resembles a Cultural Salvation Army Outlet with unaccountable collections of incompatible ideas.” This definition harmonizes with the set-up of the "Digital Rhetoric" article, mainly because the majority of the words presented on the page were hyperlinks to other Wikipedia pages.  The "Digital Rhetoric" article works as a synthesis of information, with numerous outsourced links to give information that the page itself is incapable of giving as one coherent unit.  “It is important to remember that ‘the I…is already itself a plurality of other texts,’” asserts Porter on page 42 of his work.  (This is especially clear when you scroll to the “See Also” section and take notice of the plethora of links available.)

The article on "Kairos", however, works closely with Carolyn Handa’s claims in her article “Multimedia Rhetoric.”  Handa’s beginning claims include that of everything posted on the internet not only requires context, but also is impossible to be present without it.  "Kairos" gives the context of the word and how it has been shaped over the centuries- first with ancient Greece, them its modern definition, and finally its religious impact.  There are fewer external links on this page as compared to "Digital Rhetoric," mainly because it is self-supporting, with more reputable sources given in the further reading section.

The disparity between the two articles is to be expected, mainly due to the maturity of each of the terms.  Digital rhetoric was born in the late twentieth century, as compared to Kairos’s ancient Greece.  Digital Rhetoric gives an example of the numerous fledgling articles which Wikipedia has yet to expand, something that can be seen clearly under the “stubs” category.  If one were peruse the stubs category, one would notice that a majority of the categories have to do with events or topics in recent time.  Most of these are related to sports, music, and even geography (which, although having been present for a long amount of time, was only recently able to be thoroughly expanded upon with modern technology).  The correlation between recent articles and the amount of information needed to be updated are closely related, and this can be seen even more clearly when one looks at the “Articles to be Expanded” region of Wikipedia where the earliest entry was in 2007, even though the site was founded in 2001.

In essence, the new age calls for more information and intertextuality in order to properly explain the topics involved in the digital age.  Not only that, but basics of modern discourse can be seen rooted into the ancient past, revealing that nothing today is without context.

Dealing with Conflict: Public Deliberation

Response to: "Public Spheres and Controversies and What Not"

There is one sentence in particular in Daniella's blog post that I would like to expound upon.  "An issue can be controversial without having two opposing viewpoints," she claims at the beginning of her second paragraph.  This struck a particular chord with me.  Perhaps it was the fact that it's currently 2 in the morning. Perhaps it's because I took particularly close notes on tonight's readings for no particular reason.  Whatever the case, there is a lot of unpacking which I would like to do.

Firstly, I would like to point to one David S. Kaufer.  In Kaufer's text "A Plan for Teaching the Development of Original Policy Arguments," he gives a list of what he considers the causes of policy conflict. They are the following:

1. The misunderstanding of sense or reference of certain statements.
2. The misunderstanding of the frame of reference of certain statements.
3. Conflicting evidence.
4. Conflicting local values.
5. Conflicting global values.

Daniella uses the example of Venezuela to reinforce her presented idea of controversy.  The argument given is that with the government holding its citizens in a vice grip of censorship, there are no opposing points of view within the country and therefore no controversy. Here, I would like to divulge the fifth cause of policy conflict: conflicting global values.  It may or may not be true that there is no internal controversy in the case of dictatorship (I say may not because teens have a habit of rebelling against the system), but from the global point of view, dictatorship is synonymous with "bad" or even "evil."  Especially since the reign of the Führer Adolf Hitler, when someone says "dictator" one almost immediately thinks of war, devastation, starvation, and a leader sitting on a throne of bones (maybe not literally a throne of bones). There is always another way of looking at something that will create controversy.  Even if that controversy is not impassioned, the beauty of the human complex is that there is always another viewpoint.  This is what one must keep in mind.  

This moves me to my next point of the citizen's input in public spheres.   Both Kaufer and James McDonald touch upon an ordinary person's role in the discourse forum.  Kaufer uses the opportunity to reveal a method of teaching.  He uses the example of students creating an argument for or against changing the legal drinking age in the US to 18.  Although he only barely touched upon the possibility of the student's impact, the reader came away with the knowledge that anyone can make a solid argument for whatever they need, just so long as they dig into the deeper levels of the argument (i.e. the list above).  

McDonald, in his text "I Agree, But...",  uses the opportunity to explain the situation of "The Case of Le Suroît" and the Canadian people's response against the building of the natural-gas fired electrical plant.  The people were able to create a forum of debate, which eventually led to the cancellation of the building of the plant.  However, occasionally a people's revolt does not have such clean results.  For example, the protesting in Ferguson over the killing of a boy.  This leads into a stock issue of police brutality that is being largely ignored by the general public.  

This local scale value controversy has not as of yet reached the global phenomenon that it needs to be a successful discourse.  At the same time McDonald's point of accepting the key opinions of the opposing party have not been met. The same can be said for a number of arguments which have been hardly moved over time.  Even though from one's standpoint it appears that the opposition is in the wrong, it is always wise to consider what fundamental values that both parties have in common.  It is also important to consider all levels of public discourse controversy when constructing an argument.  This includes the notion that public discourse may lead to little or no consequences.  Even discourse can't solve all the world's problems.