If we've all honed in on anything from this week's readings, it's that the essay is hugely problematic. Coming from English, which hugely relies on the essay format, it really is depressing to think that my work has only really ever been read by one professor at a time. And while a grade was usually assigned, it's hard to know just how good/bad it was-to my one-person audience, just how influential was my piece? Did it change them in any way? It's hard to say. Either way it doesn't matter, because all those essays are just past exercises with no more life to them. This system really makes me question how relevant my studies have been. Grading is good for a sense of satisfaction, but it really doesn't say anything about how my work has affected an audience. Second opinions would be nice, even if they aren't "official" through evaluation. The discussion so far has been leading towards some kind of forum for us to post our work. I really like this idea, because it allows us all to really get ideas out there and grouped together in a collective way. I like the idea of open access so that it isn't just limited to academia as well-After all, isn't the point to have our ideas reach a broader audience? But like you guys said, there are problems with this idea, like unwanted trolls or poor ideas. Some kind of upvote system could be helpful for a quick glimpse of how the community feels overall about a comment or project. I suppose this is where evaluative criteria would really come into play, as a mere like/dislike system really doesn't convey that much information. Maybe some kind of rating system on the effectiveness on a variety of aspects on the project could be implemented instead? Users could express whether the ideas being raised are innovative, if these ideas were portrayed effectively, how outside sources complimented the ideas, etc. Of course there are more criteria that could be raised, but by categorizing a communal form of evaluation users can get more of a breakdown on how the project has been perceived. To put projects, comments, and evaluations in perspective, users of such a site can say where they stand in the academic world (third year undergrad, first year masters, high school diploma) to help others filter through the sources of ideas on the site. Of course, verifying this kind of thing could be problematic…But I guess good or bad ideas could give them away? As for the limited word count idea, I think it sounds really helpful for all of us. In the end I guess it will save us all time and act as an exercise in trying new things. If we're trying to break away from an essay style of writing, concise styles may be just what we need to start changing things. At the very least, this could give us help in writing abstracts-not that I'm necessarily advocating keeping to our old publishing methods. But even if we do reach the stage of an open forum like this site we're envisioning, a concise summary of a project can be helpful. This will help us to quickly get the important information out there before anyone commits reading time.
The discussion so far has been leading towards some kind of forum for us to post our work. I really like this idea, because it allows us all to really get ideas out there and grouped together in a collective way. I like the idea of open access so that it isn't just limited to academia as well-After all, isn't the point to have our ideas reach a broader audience? But like you guys said, there are problems with this idea, like unwanted trolls or poor ideas. Some kind of upvote system could be helpful for a quick glimpse of how the community feels overall about a comment or project. I suppose this is where evaluative criteria would really come into play, as a mere like/dislike system really doesn't convey that much information. Maybe some kind of rating system on the effectiveness on a variety of aspects on the project could be implemented instead? Users could express whether the ideas being raised are innovative, if these ideas were portrayed effectively, how outside sources complimented the ideas, etc. Of course there are more criteria that could be raised, but by categorizing a communal form of evaluation users can get more of a breakdown on how the project has been perceived. To put projects, comments, and evaluations in perspective, users of such a site can say where they stand in the academic world (third year undergrad, first year masters, high school diploma) to help others filter through the sources of ideas on the site. Of course, verifying this kind of thing could be problematic…But I guess good or bad ideas could give them away?
As for the limited word count idea, I think it sounds really helpful for all of us. In the end I guess it will save us all time and act as an exercise in trying new things. If we're trying to break away from an essay style of writing, concise styles may be just what we need to start changing things. At the very least, this could give us help in writing abstracts-not that I'm necessarily advocating keeping to our old publishing methods. But even if we do reach the stage of an open forum like this site we're envisioning, a concise summary of a project can be helpful. This will help us to quickly get the important information out there before anyone commits reading time.