Comments for info-fetishist

Comment on Why we should read it before we cite it — no, really! by Sara Jameson

Sara Jameson — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 05:05:23 +0000

I like how you poit out that what appears to be a conversation among scholars may not actually be one. On the other hand, for our students, as you say, any misreading is accidental. And they are freshmen, not supposed experts. But maybe you think that for some scholars the misrepresentation is due to sloppy or lazy work or to deliberate misrepresentation? All of which means maybe we need to add something to our ILP revision for next fall?
Also something about the Wikipedia page count research I just posted on?

Comment on Why we should read it before we cite it — no, really! by Anne-Marie

Anne-Marie — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 13:36:29 +0000

Well I think I’d say of course this applies to books. I don’t think the authors are saying “this person only read the relevant chapter of this book and even though they read it really well, that’s bad.” They ‘re talking about situations where authors are saying, essentially, “this person is the authority on this topic so I’m going to cite them even though I haven’t read their article.” Pretty different I’d say. And the authors are also not, I think, talking about something that *could* be called misreading but is in fact an interpretation — they’re talking more about “this article says to do X and these authors did Q instead.”

Where the article doesn’t get there for me, actually, is in it’s very black-and-white view of writing and citing. It reduces the process to something more mechanical and more definable than I’m comfortable with. But where I think this research is really interesting and really important in the conversations you and I have had about FYC is in the concept of the conversation - there’s some pretty compelling evidence here that citations are very frequently not representing conversations and that’s an issue. Basically, these scholars aren’t engaging in dialogue with their sources any more than FYC students some of the time - and the FYC students have a much better excuse. I think realizing this is important - both for how we talk about the process to the students, and also in our expectations for what the student will be bringing to the process. If established scholars aren’t living up to that concept, we can’t expect students to get there if we don’t deliberately show them, and model for them, what that process looks like?

Comment on Why we should read it before we cite it — no, really! by Sara Jameson

Sara Jameson — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 04:35:23 +0000

OK, but does this also apply to books? Weren’t we just saying that we can reassure students in WR 121 that they really do not have to read the entire book in order to use some background facts or to use some opinion. What do you think? And as for mis-reading, that’s part of the goal of WR 121 - reading comprehension - as when we give them Gould’s essay “women’s brains” and see if they can be sure what he says relative to what the others he quotes say. I would argue that making an interpretation might consist of mis-reading or not depending on how much evidence and how it is interpreted. but that’s more literary, perhaps.

Comment on Why we should read it before we cite it — no, really! by Anne-Marie

Anne-Marie — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 01:13:09 +0000

Shaun - yes. Some of the commenters and responders also made similar points about that. I think we’d all agree that one should read it well enough to get it right (or to have made a reasonable interpretation) but beyond that it becomes problematic.

One important distinction, I think, is between those things you cite to contextualize your study (i.e. the lit review) and those things you cite to provide evidence for important claims about the method or results of your study. Those would definitely be different kinds of reading. It is also this factor that you bring up that makes me think that Wright and Anderson have a very specific type of citation in mind that they think is necessary and they’re not really thinking of those types of citations where a critical strategic reading of the original source is enough.

I also wonder if there are disciplinary distinctions in play - that I think more things should be cited than they do because of the disciplines in which I was trained? In their response piece, for example, they recommend eliminating extraneous citations - anything that is not providing evidence or a direct quote. I kind of shuddered to think of the resulting prose if we directly quoted from everything we cited - maybe that’s a disciplinary distinction.

Comment on Why we should read it before we cite it — no, really! by Shaun Huston

Shaun Huston — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 00:52:48 +0000

I also think that a question could be asked about what it means “to have read” a source before citing it. As we’ve discussed in a number of conversations, academic reading often involves closely reading select chapters of a book or even sections of an article. Of course, skimming introductory and concluding chapters/sections to ensure that the closely read pieces are properly contextualized is also part of such reading, but in no case are we talking about reading a source from beginning to end.

Comment on What I haven’t had time to say about the Cult of the Amateur by Everything is Miscellaneous at ⌘f

Everything is Miscellaneous at ⌘f — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 06:57:13 +0000

[...] few months ago, I had a brief conversation with Anne-Marie about Weinberger and his ongoing debate with Andrew Keen over just how much the [...]

Comment on Library Instruction 2.0: Building Your Online Instruction Toolkit by ALA Drive-by « Karen Munro, Learning Librarian

ALA Drive-by « Karen Munro, Learning Librarian — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 18:12:17 +0000

[...] is sunny and bright, and I’m heading into the Exhibits hall. But first I wanted to link to Anne-Marie’s blog post listing our preconference materials. The preconference was great–we had overflow attendance and a terrific group of engaged, [...]

Comment on why am I thinking about feminism and standardized testing at the same time? by 2 Sticks of Butter

2 Sticks of Butter — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 23:19:09 +0000

Great article. Sandra claims to create meals that are practical, quick and inexpensive. But if you sit and watch her show, you quickly find out it is neither.

And no Sandra, your critics are attacking American women, THEY ARE ATTACKING YOU, dear because you have no concept of what good cooking is, but you try to pass of the dreck you make as gourmet.

Comment on Games, systems and a LOTW shout-out by Sara J

Sara J — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 00:15:42 +0000

Can we really make a video game for our ILP? That would be so cool. And while people do have different ways they research, not all of their evolved ways are effective. Therefore, teaching them some other, more effective (in our opinion) ways, would be good. But what about the motivation? It’s more fun than the ILP? They can win — an “A”!!

Comment on fun with words! pretty, pretty tagclouds for all by Anne-Marie

Anne-Marie — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 17:10:28 +0000

Sara - I have no idea what is going on with your wordle. Keep trying! Maybe a different computer? It’s worth it, though.

Margaret - I love my glanceability tag too - I saw the concept in a Lorcan Dempsey blog post a long time ago and it’s just stuck with me as a really useful way to think about visualizations.

Kate, Anna & Min - I totally want to go to all of your offices and see framed word art. I keep staring at mine - it’s like poetry and art and ideas :-)