This first reading seemed to leave me with more question then answers; which I guess is a good way to start of the semester. At the end I may be able to come back to this and feel more confident about what it is talking about, but for now I feel confused. I hope we come back to several of these topics that were only glanced over in this first reading - when I find a topic interesting I prefer to beat it to death when I talk about it.
The first part of the reading made me think about credibility and more importantly how credibility is established on the internet. I have dealt with this on some level in the past; when I write papers I worry if my professor will find this a credible source is the best example. Usually I find that I get a digital objects credibility from something that is non-digital; whether this is people - is this source peer reviewed? - or other objects - has this paper been published in a book or journal? - but I have a feeling this is not a good way to go about this. Many digital sources probably don't past this test yet that does not mean they should not be credible. I'm not sure on this - this will probably be a topic I will want to explore later on in the semester.
Another thing I'm interested in was the part about anonymity. I have seen it used for good and bad. However I'm curious about what drives the bad. Flaming, trolls, and just generally those who use the ability to be anonymous on the internet for ill are obviously in audience, but why? The writing claims that it is to express strong emotions but I don't think it's just that. I try to stay away from trolls but from what I've seen there seems to be an idea of power at play there. Also I wonder if what trolls and flamers do is rhetoric. Is it persuasion or the use of force? On the one hand I'm curious (on the other hand I don't think I'm strong enough to try and collect the data).
Identity and it's part in digital rhetoric also sounds very interesting, especially how this identity could further ones ethos in different rhetorical situations. Could one gain ethos on the internet that one does not have in other settings? I do think that is true. However, this also brings me back to the idea of credibility. I'm not sure if I want to ask if this ethos is false because I don't think I could say what is a true ethos but I do wonder how a digital ethos is different then other ethos.
On an overall note this did leave me with another question; what is the opposite of digital? Is it just non-digital? Physical?
you ask some good questions here concerning ethos-When I struggle to understand someone's actions I ask myself what would they accomplish through that behavior? FE, when I have students that don't show up to class (typically considered a "bad" behavior), I wonder if there is something else going on that is overriding their ability to be present...same is the case with trolls-why do trolls flame? What do they gain from it? What are they trying to accomplish?
ReplyDelete