Online Editing

Chapter 6 of Brian Carroll's work Writing for Digital Media focuses on the idea of online editing, from both the perspectives of design and publishing.  Carroll brought up several excellent points, and I want to highlight and discuss each individually, below.

Carroll asserts in one of his first paragraphs:

 "Online publishing is not at all like editing for print, at least in terms of job responsibilities.  In print, there are clear distinctions between roles and duties among writers, designers, editors, and copyeditors.  Media convergence online is blurring and blending the job descriptions and responsibilities traditionally assigned to writers and editors.  Even hotshot page designers need to know how to write a declarative sentence; writing skills are not optional" (Carroll 120).

His assertion stating that writing skills are not optional was of particular interest to me.  Am I the only one who notices the constant spelling, grammatical, and content errors spread across Internet websites?  To what writing skills is Carroll referring to?  

Certainly, there are well written pieces available on the Internet - but because anyone can "publish" his or her work on the blogosphere or create a website, I definitely feel as though writing abilities and quality is decreased on the Internet.  Something to think about . . . .

I also enjoyed Carroll's online editing step-by-step directions.  I found it very appropriate and useful for people who edit and publish their work independently on the Internet.  In particular, I enjoyed his recommendation to define the style of the website or Internet source that content is published on - I agree it makes a difference to how the piece should be edited.

The case studies Carroll featured in this chapter were also quite informative.  I especially appreciated Case Study 3: Error Prevention Project in Brazil, because I found the idea of training writers and editors to learn how to prevent errors really interesting.  If we start with educating children as they learn to write, perhaps writing skills will only be enhanced and nourished as they grow up.

What do you think about all the various elements of online editing?  Do you think it is the same or different than print editing?  Why?

A Response to Carr's "Is Google Making us Stupid?" and Ulmer's "Introduction: Electracy"

Nicholas Carr’s article “Is Google Making us Stupid” illustrates a somewhat skeptical view of progressing technology.  As a student who never experienced a time of encyclopedias or library card catalogs, the article resonated of particular interest for me.  When I was five, my family purchased a computer – I played games on it, typed stories, used Paint.  As time and technology progressed, so did my expertise – I graduated into a world of laptop computers, followed by cell phone which are essentially miniature computers and can even make phone calls.

Yet the article presented several points that are essentially, undeniable – at least for me.  Cage’s description of Bruce Friedman, who now has trouble reading long passages such as War and Peace, is a perfectly logical exhibition of my own experiences.  Even as I was reading this article, I was tempted to skim the “less important” parts in order to absorb the information more quickly.  What does that say about me?  Does this mean then, that I am the perfect example, product, and affected candidate Cage is describing?

I also appreciated the section of the article that correlated changing technology to the way we describe our minds’ processes, particularly the example of how previously we described our minds as “working like clockwork,” whereas now we describe our minds as “working like computers” (Cage 2008).  This is another direct example of how deeply changing technology has affected society – it has even changed the way we describe our minds.

In Ulmer’s “Introduction: Electracy,” there were two aspects that stood out significantly to me.  The first was an aspect of the plain and simple definition of electracy – that it is partly technological but also partly institutional.  I have always thought of the changes in technology to be solely technological, but this definition alone made clear to me that of course, the reason behind changes in technology lies in the desire of the public; the public’s desire to adopt changes and progression.

I also appreciated a question within the article, which asked, “What is the skill set that someday may be assumed of electrate people native to an Internet institution?”  I would like to further that question by making it personal – what changes will be expected of me in the later years of my lifetime?  I think of my parents, who have deemed themselves “hopelessly technologically challenged.”  It is strange to think that more than likely, I will one day become the older person who lectures the younger generation about the “good old days” when I had to use the Internet to do research.  But where will the progression go?  Is too much progression a negative thing?  Could all of this progression, which is happening so quickly, be causing laziness among us?  Could it be taking away our desire to research, to seek and to learn?