Jump to content

User:Seandrabik/sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


  • The history section only goes up to 2018. I will collect a variety of more recent articles and try bringing the history more up to date.
  • much of the article is written more like an essay than as a Wikipedia article. I will be working to make the language of the article less wordy. I am going to look at each sentence of the article and see if there is a better way to say the things that previous editors have made over descriptive
    • In addition, I believe that much of the article has been written in a way that at the very least borders on plagiarism. I want to mitigate those problems as I improve the language of the article.
  • The Eyman source is very thorough, but is perhaps a bit over-used. Some of these references could be deleted, and other information from more varied sources could replace it in other places. Selber and Ridolfo (2024) will help carry much of the general knowledge with Eyman, as well as some of the other sources to a degree.
  • I would like to add reference to digital rhetoric's relationship to narrative theory, as per the content of Basaraba et al (2021). This would probably be best used in the section on "Critical Literacy" but it could be applied in other sections of the article as well.
  • I would like to expand the section on digital activism, which seems like it should be a more important aspect of the article. The Pain (2021) source will help with this, and I will explore if my other sources will have anything applicable to the section.
  • "Digital Rhetoric as a field of study" might make more sense as it's own main section, rather than as a curiously long subsection.
  • As per Landowska (2024), I would like to add a content related to prolepsis and predictive communication.
  • The definition of digital rhetoric used in the lead section is rather underinformed. I will draw from one of my articles to write something more substantial.
  • The definition history brings up something called "hypertext theory" without proper introduction. I found a historical article by George Landow, a major scholar in the field, to give this concept more context.
  • The reference to Doug Brent is not fully explained, and there is no background provided as to why he would be an authority. I will be sourcing from the work Eyman refers to give the information about his theory more meaning.
  • Gary Heba and his concept of Hyper Rhetoric are also not well enough explained, nor is his background provided. I'll be drawing from his original article on Hyper Rhetoric.


"Contrary to past conceptions, the definition of rhetoric can no longer be confined to simply the sending and receiving of messages to persuade or impart knowledge. While this represents a primarily ancient Western view of rhetoric, Arthur Smith of UCLA explains that the ancient rhetoric of many cultures, such as African rhetoric, existed independent of Western influence.[1] Today, rhetoric encompasses all forms of discourse that serve any given purpose within specific contexts, while also simultaneously being shaped by those contexts.[2]"

Ancient rhetoric of many cultures, such as African rhetoric, existed independent of Western influence.[1] Today, rhetoric encompasses all forms of discourse that serve any given purpose within specific contexts, while also simultaneously being shaped by those contexts.[2]

"In 1997, Doug Brent builds on this skeleton of digital rhetoric shifting focus from the hypertext theory popular at the time to a "new rhetoric" that is cemented in interconnectivity and joint construction of knowledge. Gary Heba continued the conversation with his suggestion of "HyperRhetoric" which further combined hypertext with visual rhetoric; this ability to transmit meaningful multisensory information and the subsequent literacies required to understand and employ them begins to form what could be considered today as digital rhetoric"." In 1997, Doug Brent expanded on the concept of hypertext theory, approaching the topic from a rhetorical framework, when past studies depended more on literary analysis, presenting hypertext as a kind of "new rhetoric". (add citation) The same year, Bowling Green University scholar Gary Heba united studies of hypertext and visual rhetoric into the concept of "HyperRhetoric", a multimedia communication experience that could not be replicated outside of an internet setting. Heba stated that as the online landscape and the perspectives of users change, HyperRhetoric must also adapt and evolve, which has continued as a characteristic of digital rhetoric (add citation)".

" In 2005, James P. Zappen defined digital rhetoric as a space of collaboration and creativity between the composer and the audience."

In 2005, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute scholar James P. Zappen expanded the conversation beyond persuasion and into digital rhetoric's capacity for creative expression in exploring the behavior of individuals and groups in online settings.[3]


Lead Section Originally reads:

"Digital rhetoric can be generally defined as communication that exists in the digital sphere. As such, digital rhetoric can be expressed in many different forms, including text, images, videos, and software. Due to the increasingly mediated nature of our contemporary society, there are no longer clear distinctions between digital and non-digital environments. This has expanded the scope of digital rhetoric to account for the increased fluidity with which humans interact with technology.

The field of digital rhetoric has not yet become well-established. Digital rhetoric largely draws its theory and practices from the tradition of rhetoric as both an analytical tool and a production guide. As a whole, it can be categorized as a meta-discipline.

Due to evolving study, digital rhetoric has held various meanings to different scholars over time. Similarly, digital rhetoric can take on a variety of meanings based on what is being analyzed—which depends on the concept, forms or objects of study, or rhetorical approach. Digital rhetoric can also be analyzed through the lenses of different social movements. This approach allows the reach of digital rhetoric to expand our understanding of its influence.

The term "digital rhetoric" differs from the term "rhetoric" because the latter term has been debated amongst many scholars. Only a few scholars like Elizabeth Losh and Ian Bogost have taken the time to come up with a definition for digital rhetoric. One of the most straightforward definitions for "digital rhetoric" is that it is the application of rhetorical theory."

Currently reads:

Digital rhetoric is communication that exists in the digital sphere. It can be expressed in many different forms, including text, images, videos, and software.[4] Due to the increasingly mediated nature of contemporary society, distinctions between digital and non-digital environments are less clear.[5] This has expanded the scope of digital rhetoric to account for the increased fluidity with which humans interact with technology.[6]

The field of digital rhetoric is not yet fully established. It draws theory and practices from the tradition of rhetoric as both an analytical tool and a production guide. As a whole, it can be categorized as a meta-discipline.[4]

Due to evolving study, digital rhetoric has held various meanings to different scholars over time.[4] It can take on a variety of meanings based on what is being analyzed, depending on the concept, forms or objects of study, or rhetorical approach. Digital rhetoric can also be analyzed through the lenses of different social movements.[7]

Digital rhetoric lacks a strict definition amongst scholars. The discussion and debate toward reaching a definition accounts for much of the writing, study, and teaching of the topic. [8] One of the most straightforward definitions for "digital rhetoric" is that it is the application of rhetorical theory to digital communication.[4]: 13 

Original section of Digital Rhetoric definition section (first two sections):

Evolving definition of 'digital rhetoric'

[edit]

The following subsections detail the evolving definition of 'digital rhetoric' as a term since its creation in 1989.

Early definitions (1989–2015)

[edit]

The term digital rhetoric was coined by rhetorician Richard A. Lanham in a lecture he delivered in 1989 and first published in his 1993 essay collection, The Electronic Word: Democracy, Technology, and the Arts. Lanham's definition focuses primarily on identifying properties that had previously arisen rather than providing a definition or theory to be followed. It does, however, illustrate the connection between postmodern theory, digital arts, and classical rhetoric. Digital rhetoric, in contrast, has not yet become established as a field. An additional consideration is that digital rhetoric draws its theory and methods first and foremost from the tradition of rhetoric itself—and this poses a dilemma because rhetoric is both an analytic method and a heuristic for production, and, critically for our purposes, can be structured as a kind of meta-discipline.

In 1997, Doug Brent builds on this skeleton of digital rhetoric shifting focus from the hypertext theory popular at the time to a "new rhetoric" that is cemented in interconnectivity and joint construction of knowledge. Gary Heba continued the conversation with his suggestion of "HyperRhetoric" which further combined hypertext with visual rhetoric; this ability to transmit meaningful multisensory information and the subsequent literacies required to understand and employ them begins to form what could be considered today as digital rhetoric".

In 2005, James P. Zappen defined digital rhetoric as a space of collaboration and creativity between the composer and the audience.


How these sections read now:

Evolving definition of 'digital rhetoric'

[edit]

[edit] The following subsections detail the evolving definition of 'digital rhetoric' as a term since its creation in 1989.

Early definitions (1989–2015)

[edit]

[edit] The term digital rhetoric was coined by rhetorician Richard A. Lanham in a 1989 lecture[9] and was first published in his 1993 essay collection, The Electronic Word: Democracy, Technology, and the Arts.[10] Lanham avoided coming to a firm definition, instead aiming to connect digital communication to examples from traditional communication, discussing the relationship between postmodern theory, digital arts, and classical rhetoric. Digital rhetoric theory is primarily based in traditional rhetoric and shares many of its methods and characteristics, including it's status as a meta-discipline. Lanham's work referred to many works of Hypertext theory. Hypertext theory is a similar, but less broad concept to digital rhetoric, which studied the consequences of computer users interacting with hypertext links. [11] Much of the writing on the theory focused on how the meaning that hypertext links gave to words and enforces a relationship between users and the particular words, and how this could be implemented in rhetorical and educational settings. [12]

In 1997, Calgary University professor Doug Brent expanded on the concept of hypertext theory, approaching the topic from a rhetorical framework, when past studies depended more on literary analysis. This presented hypertext as a kind of "new rhetoric".[13][14] The same year, Bowling Green University scholar Gary Heba united studies of hypertext and visual rhetoric into the concept of "HyperRhetoric", a multimedia communication experience that could not be replicated outside of an internet setting. Heba stated that as the online landscape and the perspectives of users change, HyperRhetoric must also adapt and evolve. This fluidity remains a characteristic of digital rhetoric.[15][13]

The late 1990s and early 2000s represented a greater shift towards rhetoric in digital communication study, and how "persuasion" functions in an online setting.[16] In 2005, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute scholar James P. Zappen expanded the conversation beyond persuasion and into digital rhetoric's capacity for creative expression in exploring the behavior of individuals and groups in online settings.[17]


How "Recent Scholarship" section currently reads

Recent scholarship (2015–present)

[edit]

[edit] In his 2015 book Digital Rhetoric: Theory, Method, Practice, Douglas Eyman defined digital rhetoric as "the application of rhetorical theory (as analytic method or heuristic for production) to digital texts and performances".

Eyman's definition demonstrates that digital rhetoric can be applied as an analytic method for digital texts and as a heuristic for production, offering rhetorical questions that a composer can use to create digital texts. Eyman categorized the emerging field of digital rhetoric as interdisciplinary in nature, enriched by related fields such as, but not limited to: digital literacy, visual rhetoric, new media, human–computer interaction, and critical code studies.

In 2018, rhetorician Angela Haas offered her own definition of digital rhetoric, defining it as "the digital negotiation of information – and its historical, social, economic, and political contexts and influences – to affect change". Haas emphasized that digital rhetoric does not solely apply to text-based items—it can also apply to image-based or system-based items. Any form of communication that occurs in the digital sphere can be counted as digital rhetoric under Haas' definition.


How it will read:


Recent scholarship (2015–present)

[edit]

[edit] In his 2015 book Digital Rhetoric: Theory, Method, Practice, Douglas Eyman defined digital rhetoric as "the application of rhetorical theory (as analytic method or heuristic for production) to digital texts and performances".(add citation)

By this definition, digital rhetoric can be applied as an analytic method for digital content and be a basis for future study, offering rhetorical questions as research guidelines. Eyman categorized the emerging field of digital rhetoric as interdisciplinary in nature, related to fields like: digital literacy, visual rhetoric, new media, human–computer interaction, critical code studies, and a variety of many more. (add citation)

(next paragraph unchanged)

In 2024, Penn State rhetorician Stuart A. Selber defined digital rhetoric studies through a selection of guiding questions:

  1. How does traditional rhetoric inform the study of digital communication as a rhetorical medium?
  2. When traditional rhetoric fails to inform scholars in a situation exclusive to digital formats, are new concepts required or can traditional concepts be reconsidered?
  3. If new ideas are needed, what will be their source? How will they be examples of rhetoric?

Selber stated that a concept is rhetorical if it helps in analyzing how speakers use the circumstances of society and their message's medium to influence the opinions of others. [18]


How "other definitions" section reads now:

Other definitions

[edit]

[edit] Contrary to past conceptions, the definition of rhetoric can no longer be confined to simply the sending and receiving of messages to persuade or impart knowledge. While this represents a primarily ancient Western view of rhetoric, Arthur Smith of UCLA explains that the ancient rhetoric of many cultures, such as African rhetoric, existed independent of Western influence. Today, rhetoric encompasses all forms of discourse that serve any given purpose within specific contexts, while also simultaneously being shaped by those contexts.

Another definition worth noting is that of Douglas Eyman. In Book 1 of "Digital Rhetoric: Theory, Method, Practice" by Douglas Eyman, digital rhetoric is defined as the application of rhetorical theory to digital texts and performances. It involves the management of symbols in digital environments to coordinate social action, much like traditional rhetoric but within the context of digital platforms. Digital rhetoric encompasses the analysis and production of texts, images, and other forms of communication in digital spaces, considering how they shape and are shaped by social interactions, power dynamics, and cultural contexts online. It emphasizes the persuasive and communicative aspects of digital media and the ways in which they influence human behavior and understanding.

Some scholars interpret this rhetorical discourse with greater focus on the digital aspect. Casey Boyle, James Brown Jr., and Steph Ceraso claim that "the digital" is no longer just one of the many different tools that can be used to enhance traditional rhetoric, but an "ambient condition" that encompasses our everyday lives. As technology becomes more and more ubiquitous, the lines between traditional and digital rhetoric will start to blur. In addition, Boyle et al. emphasize the idea that both technology and rhetoric can influence and transform each other.


How it will read:

Other definitions

[edit]

While most research represents a traditionally Western view of rhetoric, Arthur Smith of UCLA explains that the ancient rhetoric of many cultures, such as African rhetoric, existed independent of Western influence, and developed in in ways that reflect the values and functions of those societies. (citation) Today, rhetoric encompasses all forms of discourse that serve any given purpose within specific contexts, while also simultaneously being shaped by those contexts. (citation)

Douglas Eyman also defines digital rhetoric as the application of rhetorical theory to digital texts and performances. It involves the management of symbols in digital environments to coordinate social action, much like in traditional rhetoric. Digital rhetoric encompasses the analysis and production of texts, images, and other forms of communication in digital spaces, considering how they shape and are shaped by social interactions, power dynamics, and cultural contexts online. It emphasizes the persuasive and communicative aspects of digital media and the ways in which they influence human behavior and understanding. (redundant text.)

Some scholars interpret this rhetorical discourse with greater focus on the digital aspect. Casey Boyle, James Brown Jr., and Steph Ceraso claim that "the digital" is no longer a single strategy that can be used to enhance traditional rhetoric, but an "ambient condition" that encompass all parts of life. (citation) As technology becomes more ubiquitous, the lines between traditional and digital rhetoric will start to blur. Technology and rhetoric can influence and transform each other. (citation)


How "Concepts: circulation" reads now:

Circulation theorizes the ways that text and discourse moves through time and space, and any kind of media can be circulated. A new form of communication is composed, created, and distributed through digital technologies. Media scholar Henry Jenkins explains there is a shift from distribution to circulation, which signals a move toward an increasingly participatory model of culture in which people shape, share, re-frame, and remix media content in ways not previously possible within the traditional rhetorical formats like print. The various concepts of circulation include:

  • Collaboration – Digital rhetoric has taken on a very collaborative nature through the use of digital platforms. Sites such as YouTube and Wikipedia involve opportunity for "new forms of collaborative production". Digital platforms have created opportunities for more people to enact and create, as digital platforms open doors for collaborative communication that can occur synchronously, asynchronously, over far distances, and across multiple disciplines and professions.
  • Crowdsourcing – Daren Brabham describes the concept of crowdsourcing as the use of modern technology to collaborate, create, and solve problems collectively. However, ethical concerns have been raised as well while engaging in crowdsourcing without a clear set of compensation practices or protections in place to secure information.
  • Delivery – Whereas rhetoric once relied largely on oral methods, the rise of digital technologies allows rhetoric to be delivered in new "electronic forms of discourse". Acts and modes of communication can be represented digitally by combining multiple different forms of media into a composite helping to create an easy user experience. The growing popularity of the Internet meme is an example of combining, circulating, and delivering media in a collaborative effort through file sharing. Although memes are sent through microtransactions they often have a macro-level, large-scale impact. Another form of rhetorical delivery are encyclopedias, which traditionally were printed and based primarily on text and images. However, modern technological developments now enable online encyclopedias to integrate sound, animation, video, algorithmic search functions, and high-level productions into a cohesive multimedia experience as part of their new forms of digital rhetoric


How it will read:


Circulation theorizes the ways that text and discourse moves through time and space, and any kind of media can be circulated. A new form of communication is composed, created, and distributed through digital technologies. Media scholar Henry Jenkins explains there is a shift from distribution to circulation, which signals a move toward an increasingly participatory model of culture in which people shape, share, re-frame, and remix media content in ways not previously possible within the traditional rhetorical formats like print.  The various concepts of circulation include:

  • Collaboration – Digital rhetoric has taken on a very collaborative nature through the use of digital platforms. Sites such as YouTube and Wikipedia involve opportunity for "new forms of collaborative production". Digital platforms have created opportunities for more people to enact and create, as digital platforms open doors for collaborative communication that can occur synchronously, asynchronously, over far distances, and across multiple disciplines and professions.
  • Crowdsourcing – Daren Brabham describes the concept of crowdsourcing as the use of modern technology to collaborate, create, and solve problems collectively. Ethical concerns have been raised while engaging in crowdsourcing, specifically in situations that lack a clear set of compensation practices or protections in place to secure information.
  • Delivery – Digital technologies allow rhetoric to be delivered in new "electronic forms of discourse". Acts and modes of communication can be represented digitally by combining multiple different forms of media into a composite helping to create an easy user experience. The growing popularity of the Internet meme is an example of combining, circulating, and delivering media in a collaborative effort through file sharing. Although memes are sent through microtransactions they often have a macro-level, large-scale impact. Another form of rhetorical delivery are encyclopedias, which traditionally were printed and based primarily on text and images. However, modern technological developments now enable online encyclopedias to integrate sound, animation, video, algorithmic search functions, and high-level productions into a cohesive multimedia experience as part of their new forms of digital rhetoric.

This section only required minimal changes.


How "Interactivity" reads now:

Interactivity

[edit]

[edit] Interactivity in digital rhetoric can be defined as the ways in which readers connect to and communicate with digital texts. For example, readers have the ability to like, share, repost, comment on, and remix online content. These simple interactions allow writers, scholars, and content creators to get a better idea of how their work is affecting their audience.

Some ways communicators promote interactivity include the following:

  • Mind sharing is a way to get collective intelligence—crowd wisdom that is comparable to expert wisdom. The methodology consists of taking a consensus from the crowd—the answer that most minds are suggesting is the best answer. If the question is numeric (like guessing the weight of an ox), this method gives a calculated average or median. If the question is open-ended (like "what car should I buy?"), it gives the most common answer.
  • Multimodality is a form of communication that uses multiple methods (or modes) to inform audiences of an idea. It can involve a mix of written text, pictures, audio, or videos. These communications offer a wealth of information that could not be accessed from traditional methods, but are disorganized and can be difficult to reach conclusions from. All writing and all communication is, theoretically, multimodal. [19] (removing information that cannot be verified)
  • Remix is a method of digital rhetoric that manipulates and transforms an original work to convey a new message. The use of remix can help the creator make an argument by connecting seemingly unrelated ideas into a convincing whole. As modern technology develops, self-publication sites such as YouTube, SoundCloud, and WordPress have stimulated remix culture, allowing for easier creation and dissemination of reworked content. Unlike appropriation, which is the use and potential recontextualization of existing material without significant modification, 'remix' is defined by Ridolfo and Devoss as "the process of taking old pieces of text, images, sounds, and video and stitching them together to form a new product". A popular example of remixing is the creation and sharing of memes.

The published version of this article is missing almost all of it's proper citation. It is full of unclaimed statements.

How it will read:

Interactivity

[edit]

[edit] Interactivity in digital rhetoric can be defined as the ways in which readers connect to and communicate with digital texts.(add citation from page). This includes activity between the audience, the audience and the message being sent, the audience and the medium, and the communication between separate mediums. Readers have the ability to like, share, repost, comment on, and remix online content. These interactions allow writers, scholars, and content creators to get a better idea of how their work is affecting their audience.[20]

Some ways communicators promote interactivity include the following:

  • Mind sharing is the methods and components of communication that collective intelligence is gathered and transferred. It is based in the sharing of emotional, knowledge-based, and goal-based sharing. The human ability of language is the primary example of mind-sharing. Mind sharing functions as a method of concept sharing, presenting generally agreed upon meanings for words and phrases, and concept activation sharing, where these specific meanings prompt reactions when communicated.[21]
  • Multimodality is a form of communication that uses multiple methods (or modes) to inform audiences of an idea. It can involve a mix of written text, pictures, audio, or videos. These communications offer a wealth of information that could not be accessed from traditional methods, but are disorganized and can be difficult to reach conclusions from. All writing and all communication is, theoretically, multimodal.[19]  
  • Remix is a method of digital rhetoric that manipulates and transforms an original work to convey a new message. The use of remix can help the creator make an argument by connecting seemingly unrelated ideas into a convincing whole. As modern technology develops, self-publication sites such as YouTube, SoundCloud, and WordPress have stimulated remix culture, allowing for easier creation and dissemination of reworked content. Unlike appropriation, which is the use and potential recontextualization of existing material without significant modification, 'remix' is defined by Ridolfo and Devoss as "the process of taking old pieces of text, images, sounds, and video and stitching them together to form a new product".[22] A popular example of remixing is the creation and sharing of memes. [23]

The section on visual rhetoric only requires one change that I can see, and I will rewrite the sentence to improve it.

How it reads after changes:

Examples of the Internet relying and reshaping visual rhetoric include Social media platforms like Instagram,[24] and incredibly realistic deepfakes.[25]

How "online communities" reads before edits:

Online communities

[edit]

Online communities are groups of people with common interests that interact and engage over the Internet. Many online communities are found within social networking sites, online forums, and chat rooms, such as Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, and 4chan, where members can share and discuss information and inquiries. These online spaces often establish their own rules, norms, and culture, and in some cases, users will adopt community-specific terminology or phrases.[26]

Scholars have noted that online communities have especially gained prominence among users like e-patients and victim-survivors of abuse.[27] Within online health and support groups respectively, members have been able to find others who share similar experiences, receive advice and emotional support, and record their own narrative.[28]

Online communities support community but in some cases can support polarization. Communities face issues with online harassment in the form of trolling, cyberbullying, and hate speech.[29] According to the Pew Research Center, 41% of Americans have experienced some form of online harassment with 75% of these experiences occurring over social media.[30] Another area of concern is the influence of algorithms on delineating the online communities a user comes in contact with. Personalizing algorithms can tailor a user's experience to their analytically determined preference, which creates a "filter bubble". The user loses agency in content accessibility and information dissemination when these bubbles are created.[31][32] The loss of agency can lead to polarization, but recent research indicates that individual level polarization is rare.[33] Most polarization is due to the influx of users with extreme views that can encourage users to move towards partisan fringes from "gateway communities".[33]

A demonstration of subtle Instagram filters and how radically they can change image perception

Social media

[edit]

How it will read after edits:

Online communities

[edit]

Online communities are groups of people with common interests that interact and engage over the Internet. Many online communities are found within social networking sites, online forums, and chat rooms, such as Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, and 4chan, where members can share and discuss information and inquiries. These online spaces often establish their own rules, norms, and culture, and in some cases, users will adopt community-specific terminology or phrases.[34]

Scholars have noted that online communities have especially gained prominence among users like e-patients and victim-survivors of abuse.[35] Within online health and support groups respectively, members have been able to find others who share similar experiences, receive advice and emotional support, and record their own narrative.[36]

Online communities support community but in some cases can support polarization. Communities face issues with online harassment in the form of trolling, cyberbullying, and hate speech.[37] According to the Pew Research Center, 41% of Americans have experienced some form of online harassment with 75% of these experiences occurring over social media.[38] Another area of concern is the influence of algorithms on delineating the online communities a user comes in contact with. Personalizing algorithms can tailor a user's experience to their analytically determined preference, which creates a "filter bubble". The user loses agency in content accessibility and information dissemination when these bubbles are created.[39][40] The loss of agency can lead to polarization, but recent research indicates that individual level polarization is rare.[41] Most polarization is due to the influx of users with extreme views that can encourage users to move towards partisan fringes from "gateway communities".[41]

the last paragraph of the "research ethics" section is the portion of that category that needs the most work.

How it reads now:

Douglas Eyman's book "Digital Rhetoric: Theory, Method, Practice" features a chapter that analyzes the concept of multimodal composition. Eyman uses this chapter to examine how society's quickly advancing digital technologies have enabled individuals to communicate in unprecedented ways and to an enhanced extent. Eyman describes how different forms of communication, like images, sound, and video, can be applied in tandem with traditional written text to produce compelling and flexible rhetorical messages. The author also offers insight into how the audience and context of a work of digital composition should be taken into account and scrutinized. In summary, the chapter underscores how the nature of composing persuasive texts in a digital environment is steadily transforming and how one can produce truly innovated and newfangled multimodal compositions.

How it will read:

Douglas Eyman's Digital Rhetoric: Theory, Method, Practice features a chapter that analyzes the concept of multimodal composition. He details how society's quickly advancing digital technologies have enabled individuals to communicate in unprecedented ways and to an enhanced extent. Different forms of communication, like images, sound, and video, can be applied in tandem with traditional written text to produce compelling and flexible rhetorical messages.[42]


Further historical context on the definition of digital rhetoric:

Precursors to Digital Rhetoric, and Rhetoric in the early Computer Age

[edit]

Rhetoric has developed along side many technological developments, with digital mediums being amongst the most recent and transformative. There are many ancient and historical examples of "machine's to think with." Early examples of devices being used for the purpose of guiding thought include Martianus Capella's 9th century glossed collections of prose, philosophy and other writings, and the biblical concordances developed by monks between the 12th and 13th century.[43]

In 1917, C.I Scofield created an annotated version of the King James Bible. This version of the bible would indicate passages that related to one another throughout both the Old and New Testaments, guiding the reader's interpretation of the work. These "connected topic concordances" are similar to "key-in context concordances" used on modern computers. [44]

By the 1960's, early computers had become more prominent in many environments, and began seeing application outside of math and science. In 1964, Harvard's Allan B. Ellis published an analysis of how computers could be used to better understand literary works, through having text from The Adventures of Huckleberry plugged into punched cards and having the computer analyze the titular character.[45]


Narrative Rhetoric

[edit]

Digital storytelling is another development over that has grown with the advancement of technology. While most of these have appeared in the context of fictional works, nonfiction, rhetorical work have also taken on elements of narrative theory in a digital setting. Nonfiction "Interactive Digital Narratives" use strategies usually utilized in the service of fictional storytelling as way of conveying information or trying to convince others of a certain position or argument. [46]

Practical examples of IDNs being applied to works of rhetoric include interactive documentaries, documentaries which the user engages with on some engages with on a level more than simply observing it, and serious games, video games made with goals of nonrecreational education and training. The interactive nature of these communications means that the rhetoric of the narrative is being constantly reshaped and reinterpreted, meaning that there are many digital narratives go on without any true ending.[46]


Additions to Digital Activism section:

Though some believe that digital activism has a universal function, it takes different forms and philosophies in different parts of the world. In some parts of the world, it takes on a "techno-political" approach, basing communications off of broad political, social, and economic trends, relying on technology prevalent in the free culture movement. Others take a "techno-pragmatic" philosophy, focused more on the specific political and social goal, often at a more personal level. Some areas remain "techno-fragmented," where there are few intersections between traditional and digital forms of activism. [47]

This next portion was meant to go in Digital Activism, but I will instead be adding this to the Technofeminism section:

Online feminism also faces challenges of reactive sexism and misogyny. In one example, of the over 600 million internet users in India, 63% users are male, with 39% being female. This contrast in users often makes these heavily male digital spaces hostile to women. While some feminist social media movements are able to inspire policy change or shine a light on issues facing women, others have been subject to severe backlashes with few achievements to show as a result, even if the movement reaches a wide audience.[48]

Proleptic Communication section

Prolepsis

[edit]

Prolepsis refers to the methods by which someone anticipates possible responses and arguments to a message. In digital communication, this exists in the form of social media proleptic cues, where one user issues a social media post makes a claim about the future or attempts to influence actions towards what the future should become. Other users who respond to these posts, in the form of comments or other validating/invalidating reactions, do so based off of their own views on the predictions made. These responses serve as feedback for the original user, and as guiding tools for those responding to gauge and adapt to their own predictions. The nature of these statements makes it so that there is a possibility that anyone can inspire conversation or calls to action over a certain topic, even if they are ill-informed on the subject. Instances such as these can off lead to the spread of misinformation and disinformation online. The misuse of prolepsis in a digital sphere often occurs through false citations of authority, appeals to cultural and societal fears, and the employment of slippery slope arguments.[49]


additions to Immersive Media section:

Digital museums, serious games, and interactive documentaries often utilize virtual reality and augmented reality elements to relate users to historical settings and events, to teach them about the topic or to inform them of a specific point of view. While these are useful in conveying information in an immersive setting with an accessible narrative, those narratives can simplify the context to a point where some of the nuance is lost. Museums that employ immersive exhibits often find that tourist engage with these for the purpose of leisure, rather than wanting to gain thorough learning experience.[46]


additions to Digital Pedagogy:

Studies of digital pedagogy function as insight into the advantages and disadvantages of implementing digital technology in to education settings, and the consequences of incorrect implementation.[50] Example include electronic libraries and databases[51], as well as "thinking tools" used by students for the purposes of transcription, editing, and tagging of works.[52] Digital pedagogy is a wider scope of study than online pedagogy, focusing not only on the internet, but also on the devices and mediums of that convey the online communication.[50]

  1. ^ a b Smith, Arthur L. (March 1971). "Markings of an African concept of rhetoric". Today's Speech. 19 (2): 13–18. doi:10.1080/01463377109368973.
  2. ^ a b Ge, Yunfeng (November 2013). "Book review: Anis S Bawarshi and Mary Jo Reiff, Genre: An Introduction to History, Theory, Research, and Pedagogy". Discourse & Society. 24 (6): 833–835. doi:10.1177/0957926513490318c. S2CID 147358289.
  3. ^ Zappen, James P. (July 2005). "Digital Rhetoric: Toward an Integrated Theory". Technical Communication Quarterly. 14 (3): 319–325. doi:10.1207/s15427625tcq1403_10. ISSN 1057-2252. S2CID 54783060.
  4. ^ a b c d Eyman, Douglas (2015). Digital Rhetoric: Theory, Method, Practice. University of Michigan Press. doi:10.3998/dh.13030181.0001.001. ISBN 978-0-472-05268-4.[page needed]
  5. ^ Van Den Eede, Yoni; Goeminne, Gert; Van den Bossche, Marc (June 2017). "The Art of Living with Technology: Turning Over Philosophy of Technology's Empirical Turn". Foundations of Science. 22 (2): 235–246. doi:10.1007/s10699-015-9472-5. ISSN 1233-1821. S2CID 147446410.
  6. ^ Boyle, Casey; Brown, James J.; Ceraso, Steph (May 27, 2018). "The Digital: Rhetoric Behind and Beyond the Screen". Rhetoric Society Quarterly. 48 (3): 251–259. doi:10.1080/02773945.2018.1454187. S2CID 149842629.
  7. ^ Ridolfo, Jim (2013). "Delivering Textual Diaspora: Building Digital Cultural Repositories as Rhetoric Research". College English. 76 (2): 136–151. doi:10.58680/ce201324270. ISSN 0010-0994. JSTOR 24238146.
  8. ^ Hodgson, Justin; Barnett, Scot (November 22, 2016). "Introduction: What is Rhetorical about Digital Rhetoric? Perspectives and Definitions of Digital Rhetoric". Archived from the original on April 27, 2017.
  9. ^ Hodgson, Justin; Barnett, Scot (November 22, 2016). "Introduction: What is Rhetorical about Digital Rhetoric? Perspectives and Definitions of Digital Rhetoric". Archived from the original on April 27, 2017.
  10. ^ Lanham, R. A. (1994). The Electronic Word: Democracy, Technology, and the Arts. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-46885-3.[page needed]
  11. ^ Eyman, Douglas (2015). Digital Rhetoric: Theory, Method, Practice. University of Michigan Press. doi:10.3998/dh.13030181.0001.001. ISBN 978-0-472-05268-4.[page needed]
  12. ^ Landow, George P. (June 1989). "Hypertext in literary education, criticism, and scholarship". Computers and the Humanities. 23 (3): 173–198. doi:10.1007/BF00056142. ISSN 0010-4817.
  13. ^ a b Eyman, Douglas (2015). Digital Rhetoric: Theory, Method, Practice. University of Michigan Press. doi:10.3998/dh.13030181.0001.001. ISBN 978-0-472-05268-4.[page needed]
  14. ^ Brent, Doug (Spring 1997). "Rhetorics of the Web". kairos.technorhetoric.net. Retrieved 2024-10-09.
  15. ^ Heba, Gary (January 1997). "HyperRhetoric: Multimedia, literacy, and the future of composition". Computers and Composition. 14 (1): 19–44. doi:10.1016/S8755-4615(97)90036-0.
  16. ^ Eyman, Douglas (2015). Digital Rhetoric: Theory, Method, Practice. University of Michigan Press. doi:10.3998/dh.13030181.0001.001. ISBN 978-0-472-05268-4.[page needed]
  17. ^ Zappen, James P. (July 2005). "Digital Rhetoric: Toward an Integrated Theory". Technical Communication Quarterly. 14 (3): 319–325. doi:10.1207/s15427625tcq1403_10. ISSN 1057-2252. S2CID 54783060.
  18. ^ Selber, Stuart A.; Ridolfo, Jim (2024-04-15). "Stuart A. Selber: What is Digital Rhetoric?". Argumentation et Analyse du Discours (32). doi:10.4000/aad.8357. ISSN 1565-8961.
  19. ^ a b Grewal, Dhruv; Herhausen, Dennis; Ludwig, Stephan; Villarroel Ordenes, Francisco (2022-06-01). "The Future of Digital Communication Research: Considering Dynamics and Multimodality". Journal of Retailing. 98 (2): 224–240. doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2021.01.007. ISSN 0022-4359.
  20. ^ Pius Nedumkallel, Jose (2020-01). "Interactivity of Digital Media: Literature Review and Future Research Agenda". International Journal of Interactive Communication Systems and Technologies. 10 (1): 13–30. doi:10.4018/IJICST.2020010102. ISSN 2155-4218. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  21. ^ Zaefferer, Dietmar (2008-08-22), "Language as mind sharing device: Mental and linguistic concepts in a general ontology of everyday life", Language as mind sharing device: Mental and, De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 193–230, doi:10.1515/9783110197792.2.193, ISBN 978-3-11-019779-2, retrieved 2024-10-19
  22. ^ DeVoss, Jim Ridolfo and Dànielle Nicole (2009-01-15). "Composing for Recomposition: Rhetorical Velocity and Delivery". 13.2. Retrieved 2024-10-19.
  23. ^ Marwick, Alice (2013-11). "Memes". Contexts. 12 (4): 12–13. doi:10.1177/1536504213511210. ISSN 1536-5042. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  24. ^ Ulfsdotter, Boel; Rogers, Anna B., eds. (2018). Female Agency and Documentary Strategies: Subjectivities, Identity and Activism. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. ISBN 9781474444699.
  25. ^ Citron, Danielle; Chesney, Robert (January 1, 2019). "Deepfakes and the New Disinformation War". Foreign Affairs.
  26. ^ Plant, Robert (January 2004). "Online communities". Technology in Society. 26 (1): 51–65. doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2003.10.005.
  27. ^ Arduser, Lora (January 2011). "Warp and Weft: Weaving the Discussion Threads of an Online Community". Journal of Technical Writing and Communication. 41 (1): 5–31. doi:10.2190/TW.41.1.b. S2CID 144656923.
  28. ^ O'Neill, Tully (March 1, 2018). "'Today I Speak': Exploring How Victim-Survivors Use Reddit". International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy. 7 (1): 44–59. doi:10.5204/ijcjsd.v7i1.402.
  29. ^ Nadim, Marjan; Fladmoe, Audun (July 30, 2019). "Silencing Women? Gender and Online Harassment". Social Science Computer Review. 39 (2): 245–258. doi:10.1177/0894439319865518. hdl:11250/2608353. ISSN 0894-4393. S2CID 201127019.
  30. ^ "The State of Online Harassment". Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech. January 13, 2021. Retrieved March 2, 2021.
  31. ^ Gallagher, John R. (September 2017). "Writing for Algorithmic Audiences". Computers and Composition. 45: 25–35. doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2017.06.002.
  32. ^ Adams, Heather Brook; Applegarth, Risa; Simpson, Amber Hester (September 2020). "Acting with Algorithms: Feminist Propositions for Rhetorical Agency". Computers and Composition. 57: 102581. doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2020.102581. S2CID 225324822.
  33. ^ a b Waller, Isaac; Anderson, Ashton (2021). "Quantifying social organization and political polarization in online platforms". Nature. 600 (7888): 264–268. arXiv:2010.00590. Bibcode:2021Natur.600..264W. doi:10.1038/s41586-021-04167-x. ISSN 1476-4687. PMID 34853472. S2CID 236469369.
  34. ^ Plant, Robert (January 2004). "Online communities". Technology in Society. 26 (1): 51–65. doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2003.10.005.
  35. ^ Arduser, Lora (January 2011). "Warp and Weft: Weaving the Discussion Threads of an Online Community". Journal of Technical Writing and Communication. 41 (1): 5–31. doi:10.2190/TW.41.1.b. S2CID 144656923.
  36. ^ O'Neill, Tully (March 1, 2018). "'Today I Speak': Exploring How Victim-Survivors Use Reddit". International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy. 7 (1): 44–59. doi:10.5204/ijcjsd.v7i1.402.
  37. ^ Nadim, Marjan; Fladmoe, Audun (July 30, 2019). "Silencing Women? Gender and Online Harassment". Social Science Computer Review. 39 (2): 245–258. doi:10.1177/0894439319865518. hdl:11250/2608353. ISSN 0894-4393. S2CID 201127019.
  38. ^ "The State of Online Harassment". Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech. January 13, 2021. Retrieved March 2, 2021.
  39. ^ Gallagher, John R. (September 2017). "Writing for Algorithmic Audiences". Computers and Composition. 45: 25–35. doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2017.06.002.
  40. ^ Adams, Heather Brook; Applegarth, Risa; Simpson, Amber Hester (September 2020). "Acting with Algorithms: Feminist Propositions for Rhetorical Agency". Computers and Composition. 57: 102581. doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2020.102581. S2CID 225324822.
  41. ^ a b Waller, Isaac; Anderson, Ashton (2021). "Quantifying social organization and political polarization in online platforms". Nature. 600 (7888): 264–268. arXiv:2010.00590. Bibcode:2021Natur.600..264W. doi:10.1038/s41586-021-04167-x. ISSN 1476-4687. PMID 34853472. S2CID 236469369.
  42. ^ Digital Rhetoric. University of Michigan Press. 2015. doi:10.1353/book.40755. ISBN 978-0-472-12113-7.
  43. ^ McCarty, Willard (2023-12-22). "Digital rhetoric, literae humaniores and Leibniz's dream". Digital Enlightenment Studies. 1 (1). doi:10.61147/des.5.
  44. ^ McCarty, Willard (2023-12-22). "Digital rhetoric, literae humaniores and Leibniz's dream". Digital Enlightenment Studies. 1 (1). doi:10.61147/des.5. ISSN 3029-0953.
  45. ^ Ellis, Allan B. (1964). "The Computer and Character Analysis". The English Journal. 53 (7): 522–527. doi:10.2307/810597. ISSN 0013-8274.
  46. ^ a b c Basaraba, Nicole; Arnds, Peter; Edmond, Jennifer; Conlan, Owen (2021). "New Media Ecology and Theoretical Foundations for Nonfiction Digital Narrative Creative Practice". Narrative. 29 (3): 374–395. doi:10.1353/nar.2021.0017. ISSN 1538-974X.
  47. ^ Kaun, Anne; Uldam, Julie (2018-06). "Digital activism: After the hype". New Media & Society. 20 (6): 2099–2106. doi:10.1177/1461444817731924. ISSN 1461-4448. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  48. ^ Pain, Paromita (2021-11). ""It took me quite a long time to develop a voice": Examining feminist digital activism in the Indian #MeToo movement". New Media & Society. 23 (11): 3139–3155. doi:10.1177/1461444820944846. ISSN 1461-4448. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  49. ^ "Współczesna prolepsis w retoryce cyfrowej: role i funkcje wskazówek proleptycznych | Res Rhetorica" (in Polish). 2024-04-03. doi:10.29107/rr2024.1.10. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  50. ^ a b Volkova, Liliia V.; Lizunova, Larisa R.; Komarova, Iuliia A. (2021-12-30). "Digital pedagogy: Problems and solutions". Revista on line de Política e Gestão Educacional: 3140–3152. doi:10.22633/rpge.v25iesp.5.16003. ISSN 1519-9029.
  51. ^ Volkova, Liliia V.; Lizunova, Larisa R.; Komarova, Iuliia A. (2021-12-30). "Digital pedagogy: Problems and solutions". Revista on line de Política e Gestão Educacional: 3140–3152. doi:10.22633/rpge.v25iesp.5.16003. ISSN 1519-9029.
  52. ^ Bryant, John; Isbell, Mary; Ohge, Christopher; Zimmer, Mary Erica (2024-06-21). "Digital Editing and Pedagogy". Scholarly Editing Journal (Volume 41). doi:10.55520/KBS01GGN. ISSN 2167-1257. {{cite journal}}: |issue= has extra text (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Seandrabik/sandbox&oldid=1256491950"