November 2008 Archives

November 30, 2008

I've looked at this page too long

Well, my final draft of my website for the 2008 Jumonville Summer Staff is done. I think it turned out pretty well, I'm decently happy with it. I'm actually just happy that I got all of what I wanted on there done on time to do the Beta Testing for class tomorrow.

I was trying to make a site that shows the pictures that didn't make it to the staff site that Jumonville already has made and to show more of an inside view of what a summer full of camp is to the people that actually live it. (I think I got that accomplished.)

But please feel free to make suggestions and tell me what you like and hate about the site - personally it's starting to get on my nerves because I've been looking at it and working with it for so long now, it seems anyway. Let me know what you think, whether you're in the class or not - and if you need a person to look over your site, feel free to ask!

November 17, 2008

Oh yeah, I am a writer...

Today in class as we were doing our alpha tests I realized while looking at some other classmates websites that I need to put more writing on my website. Duh, Chels.

Although through the alpha testing I got a lot of positive feedback about my "in the making" website about the 2008 summer staff at Jumonville. I know there were quite a few people that looked at my site and didn't really have anything "bad" to say about it. (Come on guys, find something...haha) and so far, Maddie already commented in her blog about how much she liked my design....but besides that I need to add more writing to it because, after all this class is Writing for the Internet.

I think that I will continue to be my own worst critic though because I am very passionate about the subject that I'm working with. (As you can tell from blogs I posted over the summer from beginning to end of the "Jumonville Journey.") But I guess I could add those responses to the site (as I just think of that idea now) to make up for the lack of A LOT of writing. 

But there are also a number of things, besides the writing that I have to add as well:

  • A better heading - I hate the block-y-ness of the one I have now
  • A navigation bar like the one Jackie has on her WAF site to the bottom of my page
  • Pictures, that I am still gathering, for each staff members individual page
  • At least one link back to Jumonville's already established website

I think it will turn out decently well once I get all of my own personal touches in there along with some of the selected writings I already did - we'll see how that turns out. Although, I already talked to my bosses, Larry and Ree, and they said that they think this is a great idea and depending on how it turns out will want to link it to Jumonville's site...ugh, that just gives me more pressure to make it look good. (As if I didn't give myself enough reason to do so already, haha.)

 

But as a side note, if you are willing, you can help me sort through the entries I wrote over the summer by reading the following links. (Or if you think I should add them all, please let me know - or if you have any other ideas, please feel free to throw them my way.)

November 11, 2008

And you can't fight the tears that ain't coming

Hmmm....blogging portfolio three for Writing for the Internet. A time to reflect on the past month or so in the class and the work we've done and to see what we've learned so far this semester. Oh, memories.

Must say, this class is not what I expected it to be; however, I've learned a lot through it. I learned where my strengths and weaknesses are when it comes to the internet - and where I'm willing to learn. (ex: I may actually use html someday for a client, so I was willing to learn more and more about that but I never see myself making text games so I was never really head over heels in learning how to do that better.)

On to the entries.

Coverage - I did miss a blog entry this time around. I missed the blogging for October 29, and I'm going to guess that it's because that blogging was about making text games, which I said wasn't of great interest to me - so that homework assignment clearly was put on the back burner that night. (I probably had to write a large paper for another class that night as well. Good possiblity.)

Timeliness - Like I said in the portfolio two, my account of timely is much sooner than Jerz's so I did okay with that this time around. I've gotten much better at the timely thing especially since last year. Some entries that prove that are as follows.

Discussion/Interaction - Usually my best areas but this time around I fell through with it. However, there is some class business going on, on my blog - along with some outsider comments.

Depth - I did not do as well as I did on this part as I did in the last portfolio either - but we did notice in the last portfolio that not many people commented when I had a lot of depth entries - so I'm trying to find the "happy medium" in this section still.

A decent portfolio. Not one of my best but still decent.

 

When my job becomes my work

For the term project for Writing for the Internet, I am making a staff website for the summer camp that I worked at over the summer. Although - technically you can already find staff pictures from the summer online, I'm hoping to post the pictures that didn't make it to the website - the ones that really show the personalities of the staff are actually on display.

So far I have a home page with a picture of everyone linking to their own personal (but so far blank) pages. I plan to put a little biography on each of the personal pages along with pictures from through out the summer. On the home page I also link to a page that I made at the beginning of the year when we first started making html codes and will make other pages like it for group photos.

I think I'm well on my way and will do fine - but I will need people to look over the draft when it's all set up - so I'll be looking out for people to fill that spot.

November 6, 2008

We're rivals everywhere

When comparing the Seton Hill Wikipedia site and the St. Vincent Wikipedia site - I found myself saying "we're better," for a couple of things - showing that I still see us as rivals.

While I thought that both sites gave good brief over-views of the colleges, I still think that SHU's was better - but of course I have a biased opinion. I liked that SVC's site had more intimate things like the part about the "Crazies" (even though I think that is disrespectful) it made their site feel more like a student wrote it - where as SHU's site sounds like a brochure.

Both are decent Wikipedia sites. But both could have A LOT more thought put into them. They both sound like someone was just getting something onto the web - instead of really digging into the facts and the personal side of the schools.

Even if we're not in the same level of on-field competition anymore...we're still rivals - now it's just on and off of the internet.

Hit the easy button

On Wikipedia I edited the page about Jumonville, the summer camp that I worked at this past summer for our class project.

Because we were told to pick a subject we knew a lot about and since I have known about Jumonville since I was eight, I figured that would be a good site to look at. I have to say that I was pretty disapointed when I went there and found that barely anything was on the page.

Not really knowing where to start, I just went to Jumonville's website and copied what they had to say - but I gave them proper credit, so no plagiarism was involved - I take no credit for writing what the Wikipedia site says now, all I did was upload it.

I also added a picture...but sometimes it doesn't show up. (Insert sad face here.)

Everything on the editing page was fairly easy to use though, I felt that it was like creating a blog page - so it wasn't too hard to use, which is nice so people can edit pages easily - but that's also bad because that means that anyone can change and alter the information - whether it's true or not.

They look for serious in these parts

I have to say that I was pretty impressed when reading "the rules" of Wikipedia. I liked that whoever wrote it was really serious about it, but still made using and editing Wikipedia really inviting - like a fun little social that anyone is allowed to attend. (How cute!)

I really was impressed with the Five Pillars and Key policies and guidelines pages because of how offcial and professional they both made Wikipedia sound. Which made me think about the article we read about how Wikipedia is becoming credible.

Though both of these "rules" pages seemed very professional there was still one thing that bothered me about them, which was at the bottom of each page was the edit link, that you can find at the end of every page on Wikipedia. Though I guess this is useful - who wrote these pages? The creators of Wikipedia - or some random users. For me, to feel like Wikipedia is a creditable source, they'll need to get rid of that edit link - especially on the pages that are supposed to display the rules for all of Wikipedia's users.

Wikipedia: a go-to source?

I'll admit it, I use Wikipedia. But I never cite it. I usually only go there to get a brief overview of the topic I'm researching, so I know of some things to look for. (It's kind of like how I use SparkNotes to get some other ideas about books I'm reading, to see what I might have missed in works of literature.)

In those cases, I don't see why either sight is "bad" though many professors have told my classes to never, ever even look at those sites. However, is that all changing now?

In our Writing for the Internet class we read an article about how Wikipedia may be becoming an academic source, though I don't think Wikipedia will ever be that advanced if anyone with a computer is always allowed to edit it, this article brought up a lot of interesting points about how scholars use it, basically for the same reason I do. (Ha, who knew I was so bright!)

This part stuck out most to me... "Of course, just because more researchers—including some prominent ones—are citing Wikipedia does not mean it’s necessarily a valid source for academic papers.  However, you can begin to see academic norms shifting as more scholars find useful information in Wikipedia and begin to cite it." I like this part best because I don't fully agree with it. Even if some prominent researchers are now citing Wikipedia, I don't think I ever will. I don't feel that something that can be altered by any average human being at any time could ever be considered scholarly. So, you won't see me citing it until it is only run by a few, VERY smart people.

I think that my idea is justified by this article, where it talks about someone being sued for liable because of something he put on Wikipedia; when the only reason he did so was to make a joke - because he didn't think Wikipedia was a real website used for research, he thought it was just a joke site.

Both of these articles were interesting, but because both of these sides exist I don't think I'll ever be able to fully take Wikipedia seriously.