Page to Screen

     This week's readings by Johnson-Eilola and Kohl brought up a number of interesting points, but more specifically focused on an idea we have been following since the beginning of the semester.  The idea being the evolution of writing in our society and the overall shift in the paradigm.  I noticed these articles tended to lean more towards the negative aspects of writing's progressive move from page to screen.  The author's were less excited about the effects of the digital revolution and more worried about the status of lone authorship and intellectual property.  I couldn't help but agree with a lot of what was pointed out, but I can't help but prefer the modern forms of writing that have presented themselves in the last few decades and continue to develop.  On that note, a couple of engaging ideas really piqued my interest.
     In their analysis of collaborative media and inclusion of the Wiki examples, Kohl and his associates stated "texts on the internet no longer appear static, but rather as dynamic forms of writing, [...] they must be understood and analyzed as writing processes and less as final works." (171).  If we think about the abundance of public forums found online, we can see just how often this collaborative writing style is in effect at nearly every turn in hyperspace.  Wikipedia is the most obvious example, but it is also probably the most widely used.  Users can actually go in and edit text, even html, to alter the appearance of each page without the consent of the previous author.  Wikipedia is by no means the most legitimate source of information, but it is a quick reference that almost everyone uses for some reason.  Edited information can be quickly flagged, but it can also go unnoticed.  Web forums like these have the ability to alter information, putting falsities into the cyber universe that many people have the option to call upon.  Using Wikipedia is a bit of a catch-22 because it isn't a valid source, but people still log on to get what they think is correct information on a subject.  It's on my favorites bar between Gmail and MSU.  I am guilty of believing what I read without proper source checking, as so many are.  Online databases through academic and professional institutions have helped this issue by including detailed references with the texts they make available.  Johnson-Eilola, in his discussion legislation regarding online databases, suggests amendments of these bills "point toward a society in which writing as we know it is no longer the premier textuality" (209).  I for one am glad we are going digital, regardless of the problems that arise with the transfer.  Maybe I'm just a lazy college student who doesn't like to carry around large volumes and hates waiting in line at the library to print.  I think the positives of the shift from paper to screen outweighs its negatives.

Here's an interesting article on why Wikipedia ain't so bad.  Reading this, I still don't feel comfortable using it as a source, but accept it to be at least a little more legitimate.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/40503515.pdf?acceptTC=true&acceptTC=true&jpdConfirm=true