Criteria
From Information Habitat
Wiki Assignment Criteria
• Context:
- Informationhabitat.org > WRA 415 class learning environments, but also an environment open to all students, scholars and researchers.
• Audience:
- Teachers
- Other WRAC students/researchers/scholars
- Those interested in digital rhetoric
• Purpose:
- To get an A!
- Present a compelling history of old media… to make it relevant to new media!
• Form:
- Short is better. Conciseness!
- Chunking > easy to read! > keeps readers’ attention
- Linking to other related articles
- Headers & Subheaders > key words > bold type
- Bullets/Lists
- Boxes (press space twice and voila!)
- Navigation (headers will create a table of contents at the top. Yay!)
- Repeating information > Consistency
- Readability
- Other contributors?
- Sources > list as references/footnotes at the end > APA, MLA
• Style:
- digital rhetoricians in audience…
- Logical
- Create an appropriate ethos
- More formal than a blog entry
As part of the assignment you will need to edit at least one other student’s entry. You can negotiate with other students or groups when the best time for editing intervention would be.
You will also complete a reflection that explains your rhetorical choices and evaluation of your production (250-500 words). You should consider
- ethos (how well you constructed your credibility and character)
- logos (how did you construct a sense for readers that the post was reasonable, correct, and logical)
- pathos (how did you appeal to your reader’s emotions and senses)
- wiki (how well did you use the conventions of a wiki)
- It will also be important to think about purpose, context and users.
- In short, explain how well you did (and what did not work so well).
Submit the reflection to your instructor (rehberge@msu.edu)
If you are working in a group, you can share writing the reflection, but then you should spend some extra time briefly describing your impressions of the group collaboration. Each group member should submit his/her own reflection.
