https://rhetorclick.com/index.php?feed=atom&target=Jennifer_Robichaux&title=Special%3AContributions%2FJennifer_RobichauxRhetorClick - User contributions [en]2026-05-16T00:54:52ZFrom RhetorClickMediaWiki 1.16.1https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Style_GuideStyle Guide2012-04-17T14:46:41Z<p>Jennifer Robichaux: </p>
<hr />
<div>==Purpose of Style Guide==<br />
<br />
This style guide will enable wiki contributors to keep a consistent voice, style, and design when adding or editing content. To make the wiki as effective as possible, it is important for both writing and design to remain consistent and accessible. Refer to the following guidelines for rules on grammar, punctuation, headings, form, and layout. <br />
<br />
== Style Guidelines == <br />
<br />
* When adding a new page, give a brief description (one or two sentences) of what information is found on that page immediately beneath the title. <br />
<br />
* When using Level 2 Headlines, put one line space between the title and the first line entry.<br />
<br />
* For bulleted and numbered lists, put one space between the bullet point and the first word.<br />
<br />
* For bulleted and numbered lists, put one line space between entries.<br />
<br />
* For all headings (titles and level 2 headlines), use up-style. (Example: This Is How It Should Look / This is not how it should look)<br />
<br />
* In the convention of Wikipedia, at the bottom of each page, put "See Also" for links to other pages within the wiki and "External Links" in level 2 headlines for useful links that are not easily integrated into the body of text.<br />
<br />
==Writing Guidelines==<br />
<br />
* Follow the rules of American grammar and spelling.<br />
<br />
* Follow MLA style when using citations<br />
<br />
* Refer to Diana Hacker's online[http://bcs.bedfordstmartins.com/resdoc5e/index.htm] guide to research and documentation for citation guidelines<br />
<br />
== Article Summaries ==<br />
<br />
* Should be written in third person<br />
<br />
* If using quotations, use footnotes to cite<br />
<br />
* If possible, use hyperlinks to link to an online source<br />
<br />
* Divide the article summary into four sections: Abstract, Summary, Possible Implications, and References<br />
<br />
* The abstract should provide a succinct summary of the article, no more than 200 words long<br />
<br />
* The article summary should provide a comprehensive overview of the article. If possible, include quotations (with footnotes). <br />
<br />
* Following the summary, the "Possible Implications" section is a space for a more subjective analysis of the article. While this should still be written in third person, feel free to propose alternative interpretations or links to outside sources that may be related to the article. <br />
<br />
* Lastly, end the article summary with the "References" section. Refer to the footnotes instructions at the end of the style guide for creating the references. <br />
<br />
* List article summaries in alphabetical order by author's last name.<br />
<br />
* Title should be the article title (within quotation marks), followed by the author's full name. (Example: "Definition of Man" by Kenneth Burke)<br />
<br />
* Link to the author's page somewhere within the summary.<br />
<br />
== Glossary ==<br />
<br />
* Bold the word being defined, followed by a colon<br />
<br />
* If using a word/definition from an article, link to the article summary using a parenthetical reference after the definition<br />
<br />
*Example definition-- '''Aesthetics''': study of the mind and emotions in relation to the sense of beauty (see [["The New Rhetoric: A Theory of Practical Reasoning" by Chaïm Perelman]])<br />
<br />
== Author Pages ==<br />
<br />
* List authors in alphabetical order by last name. For links, write authors' names as Last Name, First Name.<br />
<br />
* Title should be the author's full name (include middle initials, if commonly used).<br />
<br />
* Repeat author's full name to start entry, followed by birth year and death year (if still living, write "present"). <br />
<br />
* Link to article summaries by that author under an "Article Summaries" Level 2 Headline.<br />
<br />
* Follow this general format for all author pages: summary, biography (including education, early life, family, occupations, awards, etc.), article summaries, additional works/ publications, further readings, references, and external links. Other sections can be added as desired (such as Notable Quotes). <br />
<br />
== Definitions of Rhetoric ==<br />
<br />
* List authors alphabetically by last name. (Example: Burke, Kenneth)<br />
<br />
* Do not use Level 2 Headlines for authors' name -- make the names '''bold'''.<br />
<br />
* Use a bulleted list for definitions beneath author's name.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
* Use a numbered list -- not a bulleted list.<br />
<br />
== Timeline ==<br />
<br />
* List authors by First Name, Last Name.<br />
<br />
* Link authors' names to their corresponding Authors Page.<br />
<br />
* List authors in order by birth date, from earliest to most current.<br />
<br />
==Footnotes==<br />
*Use these instructions to create footnotes: <br />
<br />
[[File:Footnotes_instructions.jpg]]<br />
<br />
<br />
(If linking the footnote to a citation instead of a URL, put the citation within the brackets instead)</div>Jennifer Robichauxhttps://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Style_GuideStyle Guide2012-04-17T14:43:31Z<p>Jennifer Robichaux: /* Writing Guidelines */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Purpose of Style Guide==<br />
<br />
This style guide will enable wiki contributors to keep a consistent voice, style, and design when adding or editing content. To make the wiki as effective as possible, it is important for both writing and design to remain consistent and accessible. Refer to the following guidelines for rules on grammar, punctuation, headings, form, and layout. <br />
<br />
== Style Guidelines == <br />
<br />
* When adding a new page, give a brief description (one or two sentences) of what information is found on that page immediately beneath the title. <br />
<br />
* When using Level 2 Headlines, put one line space between the title and the first line entry.<br />
<br />
* For bulleted and numbered lists, put one space between the bullet point and the first word.<br />
<br />
* For bulleted and numbered lists, put one line space between entries.<br />
<br />
* For all headings (titles and level 2 headlines), use up-style. (Example: This Is How It Should Look / This is not how it should look)<br />
<br />
* In the convention of Wikipedia, at the bottom of each page, put "See Also" for links to other pages within the wiki and "External Links" in level 2 headlines for useful links that are not easily integrated into the body of text.<br />
<br />
==Writing Guidelines==<br />
<br />
* Follow the rules of American grammar and spelling.<br />
<br />
* Follow MLA style when using citations<br />
<br />
* Refer to Diana Hacker's online[http://bcs.bedfordstmartins.com/resdoc5e/index.htm] guide to research and documentation for citation guidelines<br />
<br />
== Article Summaries ==<br />
<br />
* Should be written in third person<br />
<br />
* If using quotations, use footnotes to cite<br />
<br />
* If possible, use hyperlinks to link to an online source<br />
<br />
* Divide the article summary into four sections: Abstract, Summary, Possible Implications, and References<br />
<br />
* The abstract should provide a succinct summary of the article, no more than 200 words long<br />
<br />
* The article summary should provide a comprehensive overview of the article. If possible, include quotations (with footnotes). <br />
<br />
* Following the summary, the "Possible Implications" section is a space for a more subjective analysis of the article. While this should still be written in third person, feel free to propose alternative interpretations or links to outside sources that may be related to the article. <br />
<br />
* Lastly, end the article summary with the "References" section. Refer to the footnotes instructions at the end of the style guide for creating the references. <br />
<br />
* List article summaries in alphabetical order by author's last name.<br />
<br />
* Title should be the article title (within quotation marks), followed by the author's full name. (Example: "Definition of Man" by Kenneth Burke)<br />
<br />
* Link to the author's page somewhere within the summary.<br />
<br />
== Glossary ==<br />
<br />
* Bold the word being defined, followed by a colon<br />
<br />
* If using a word/definition from an article, link to the article summary using a parenthetical reference after the definition<br />
<br />
*Example definition-- '''Aesthetics''': study of the mind and emotions in relation to the sense of beauty (see [["The New Rhetoric: A Theory of Practical Reasoning" by Chaïm Perelman]])<br />
<br />
==Outside Resources==<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
== Author Pages ==<br />
<br />
* List authors in alphabetical order by Last Name. For links, write authors' names as Last Name, First Name.<br />
<br />
* Title should be the author's full name (include middle initials, if commonly used).<br />
<br />
* Repeat author's full name to start entry, followed by birth year and death year (if still living, write "present"). <br />
<br />
* Link to Article Summaries by that author under an "Article Summaries" Level 2 Headline.<br />
<br />
* Follow this general format for all Author Pages: summary, biography (including education, early life, family, occupations, awards, etc.), article summaries, additional works/ publications, further readings, references, and external links. Other sections can be added as desired (such as Notable Quotes). <br />
<br />
== Definitions of Rhetoric ==<br />
<br />
* List authors alphabetically by last name. (Example: Burke, Kenneth)<br />
<br />
* Do not use Level 2 Headlines for authors' name -- make the names '''bold'''.<br />
<br />
* Use a bulleted list for definitions beneath author's name.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
* Use a numbered list -- not a bulleted list.<br />
<br />
== Timeline ==<br />
<br />
* List authors by First Name, Last Name.<br />
<br />
* Link authors' names to their corresponding Authors Page.<br />
<br />
* List authors in order by birth date, from earliest to most current.<br />
<br />
==Footnotes==<br />
*Use these instructions to create footnotes: <br />
<br />
[[File:Footnotes_instructions.jpg]]</div>Jennifer Robichauxhttps://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Style_GuideStyle Guide2012-04-17T14:42:33Z<p>Jennifer Robichaux: </p>
<hr />
<div>==Purpose of Style Guide==<br />
<br />
This style guide will enable wiki contributors to keep a consistent voice, style, and design when adding or editing content. To make the wiki as effective as possible, it is important for both writing and design to remain consistent and accessible. Refer to the following guidelines for rules on grammar, punctuation, headings, form, and layout. <br />
<br />
== Style Guidelines == <br />
<br />
* When adding a new page, give a brief description (one or two sentences) of what information is found on that page immediately beneath the title. <br />
<br />
* When using Level 2 Headlines, put one line space between the title and the first line entry.<br />
<br />
* For bulleted and numbered lists, put one space between the bullet point and the first word.<br />
<br />
* For bulleted and numbered lists, put one line space between entries.<br />
<br />
* For all headings (titles and level 2 headlines), use up-style. (Example: This Is How It Should Look / This is not how it should look)<br />
<br />
* In the convention of Wikipedia, at the bottom of each page, put "See Also" for links to other pages within the wiki and "External Links" in level 2 headlines for useful links that are not easily integrated into the body of text.<br />
<br />
==Writing Guidelines==<br />
<br />
* Follow the rules of American grammar and spelling.<br />
<br />
* Follow MLA style when using citations<br />
<br />
* Refer to Diana Hacker's (online[http://bcs.bedfordstmartins.com/resdoc5e/index.htm]) guide to research and documentation for citation guidelines<br />
<br />
== Article Summaries ==<br />
<br />
* Should be written in third person<br />
<br />
* If using quotations, use footnotes to cite<br />
<br />
* If possible, use hyperlinks to link to an online source<br />
<br />
* Divide the article summary into four sections: Abstract, Summary, Possible Implications, and References<br />
<br />
* The abstract should provide a succinct summary of the article, no more than 200 words long<br />
<br />
* The article summary should provide a comprehensive overview of the article. If possible, include quotations (with footnotes). <br />
<br />
* Following the summary, the "Possible Implications" section is a space for a more subjective analysis of the article. While this should still be written in third person, feel free to propose alternative interpretations or links to outside sources that may be related to the article. <br />
<br />
* Lastly, end the article summary with the "References" section. Refer to the footnotes instructions at the end of the style guide for creating the references. <br />
<br />
* List article summaries in alphabetical order by author's last name.<br />
<br />
* Title should be the article title (within quotation marks), followed by the author's full name. (Example: "Definition of Man" by Kenneth Burke)<br />
<br />
* Link to the author's page somewhere within the summary.<br />
<br />
== Glossary ==<br />
<br />
* Bold the word being defined, followed by a colon<br />
<br />
* If using a word/definition from an article, link to the article summary using a parenthetical reference after the definition<br />
<br />
*Example definition-- '''Aesthetics''': study of the mind and emotions in relation to the sense of beauty (see [["The New Rhetoric: A Theory of Practical Reasoning" by Chaïm Perelman]])<br />
<br />
==Outside Resources==<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
== Author Pages ==<br />
<br />
* List authors in alphabetical order by Last Name. For links, write authors' names as Last Name, First Name.<br />
<br />
* Title should be the author's full name (include middle initials, if commonly used).<br />
<br />
* Repeat author's full name to start entry, followed by birth year and death year (if still living, write "present"). <br />
<br />
* Link to Article Summaries by that author under an "Article Summaries" Level 2 Headline.<br />
<br />
* Follow this general format for all Author Pages: summary, biography (including education, early life, family, occupations, awards, etc.), article summaries, additional works/ publications, further readings, references, and external links. Other sections can be added as desired (such as Notable Quotes). <br />
<br />
== Definitions of Rhetoric ==<br />
<br />
* List authors alphabetically by last name. (Example: Burke, Kenneth)<br />
<br />
* Do not use Level 2 Headlines for authors' name -- make the names '''bold'''.<br />
<br />
* Use a bulleted list for definitions beneath author's name.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
* Use a numbered list -- not a bulleted list.<br />
<br />
== Timeline ==<br />
<br />
* List authors by First Name, Last Name.<br />
<br />
* Link authors' names to their corresponding Authors Page.<br />
<br />
* List authors in order by birth date, from earliest to most current.<br />
<br />
==Footnotes==<br />
*Use these instructions to create footnotes: <br />
<br />
[[File:Footnotes_instructions.jpg]]</div>Jennifer Robichauxhttps://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Style_GuideStyle Guide2012-04-17T14:41:03Z<p>Jennifer Robichaux: /* Writing Guidelines */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Purpose of Style Guide==<br />
<br />
This style guide will enable wiki contributors to keep a consistent voice, style, and design when adding or editing content. To make the wiki as effective as possible, it is important for both writing and design to remain consistent and accessible. Refer to the following guidelines for rules on grammar, punctuation, headings, form, and layout. <br />
<br />
== Style Guidelines == <br />
<br />
* When adding a new page, give a brief description (one or two sentences) of what information is found on that page immediately beneath the title. <br />
<br />
* When using Level 2 Headlines, put one line space between the title and the first line entry.<br />
<br />
* For bulleted and numbered lists, put one space between the bullet point and the first word.<br />
<br />
* For bulleted and numbered lists, put one line space between entries.<br />
<br />
* For all headings (titles and level 2 headlines), use up-style. (Example: This Is How It Should Look / This is not how it should look)<br />
<br />
* In the convention of Wikipedia, at the bottom of each page, put "See Also" for links to other pages within the wiki and "External Links" in level 2 headlines for useful links that are not easily integrated into the body of text.<br />
<br />
==Writing Guidelines==<br />
<br />
* Follow the rules of American grammar and spelling.<br />
<br />
* Follow MLA style when using citations<br />
<br />
* Refer to Diana Hacker's online[http://bcs.bedfordstmartins.com/resdoc5e/index.htm] guide to research and documentation for citation guidelines<br />
<br />
== Article Summaries ==<br />
<br />
* Should be written in third person<br />
<br />
* If using quotations, use footnotes to cite<br />
<br />
* If possible, use hyperlinks to link to an online source<br />
<br />
* Divide the article summary into four sections: Abstract, Summary, Possible Implications, and References<br />
<br />
* The abstract should provide a succinct summary of the article, no more than 200 words long<br />
<br />
* The article summary should provide a comprehensive overview of the article. If possible, include quotations (with footnotes). <br />
<br />
* Following the summary, the "Possible Implications" section is a space for a more subjective analysis of the article. While this should still be written in third person, feel free to propose alternative interpretations or links to outside sources that may be related to the article. <br />
<br />
* Lastly, end the article summary with the "References" section. Refer to the footnotes instructions at the end of the style guide for creating the references. <br />
<br />
* List article summaries in alphabetical order by author's last name.<br />
<br />
* Title should be the article title (within quotation marks), followed by the author's full name. (Example: "Definition of Man" by Kenneth Burke)<br />
<br />
* Link to the author's page somewhere within the summary.<br />
<br />
== Glossary ==<br />
<br />
* Bold the word being defined, followed by a colon<br />
<br />
* If using a word/definition from an article, link to the article summary using a parenthetical reference after the definition<br />
<br />
*Example definition-- '''Aesthetics''': study of the mind and emotions in relation to the sense of beauty (see [["The New Rhetoric: A Theory of Practical Reasoning" by Chaïm Perelman]])<br />
<br />
==Outside Resources==<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
== Author Pages ==<br />
<br />
* List authors in alphabetical order by Last Name. For links, write authors' names as Last Name, First Name.<br />
<br />
* Title should be the author's full name (include middle initials, if commonly used).<br />
<br />
* Repeat author's full name to start entry, followed by birth year and death year (if still living, write "present"). <br />
<br />
* Link to Article Summaries by that author under an "Article Summaries" Level 2 Headline.<br />
<br />
* Follow this general format for all Author Pages: summary, biography (including education, early life, family, occupations, awards, etc.), article summaries, additional works/ publications, further readings, references, and external links. Other sections can be added as desired (such as Notable Quotes). <br />
<br />
== Definitions of Rhetoric ==<br />
<br />
* List authors alphabetically by last name. (Example: Burke, Kenneth)<br />
<br />
* Do not use Level 2 Headlines for authors' name -- make the names '''bold'''.<br />
<br />
* Use a bulleted list for definitions beneath author's name.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
* Use a numbered list -- not a bulleted list.<br />
<br />
== Timeline ==<br />
<br />
* List authors by First Name, Last Name.<br />
<br />
* Link authors' names to their corresponding Authors Page.<br />
<br />
* List authors in order by birth date, from earliest to most current.<br />
<br />
==Footnotes==<br />
*Use these instructions to create footnotes: <br />
<br />
[[File:Footnotes_instructions.jpg]]</div>Jennifer Robichauxhttps://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Style_GuideStyle Guide2012-04-17T14:39:53Z<p>Jennifer Robichaux: /* Writing Guidelines */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Purpose of Style Guide==<br />
<br />
This style guide will enable wiki contributors to keep a consistent voice, style, and design when adding or editing content. To make the wiki as effective as possible, it is important for both writing and design to remain consistent and accessible. Refer to the following guidelines for rules on grammar, punctuation, headings, form, and layout. <br />
<br />
== Style Guidelines == <br />
<br />
* When adding a new page, give a brief description (one or two sentences) of what information is found on that page immediately beneath the title. <br />
<br />
* When using Level 2 Headlines, put one line space between the title and the first line entry.<br />
<br />
* For bulleted and numbered lists, put one space between the bullet point and the first word.<br />
<br />
* For bulleted and numbered lists, put one line space between entries.<br />
<br />
* For all headings (titles and level 2 headlines), use up-style. (Example: This Is How It Should Look / This is not how it should look)<br />
<br />
* In the convention of Wikipedia, at the bottom of each page, put "See Also" for links to other pages within the wiki and "External Links" in level 2 headlines for useful links that are not easily integrated into the body of text.<br />
<br />
==Writing Guidelines==<br />
<br />
* Follow the rules of American grammar and spelling.<br />
<br />
* Follow MLA style when using citations<br />
<br />
* Refer to Diana Hacker's [[[online http://bcs.bedfordstmartins.com/resdoc5e/index.htm]]] guide to research and documentation for citation guidelines<br />
<br />
== Article Summaries ==<br />
<br />
* Should be written in third person<br />
<br />
* If using quotations, use footnotes to cite<br />
<br />
* If possible, use hyperlinks to link to an online source<br />
<br />
* Divide the article summary into four sections: Abstract, Summary, Possible Implications, and References<br />
<br />
* The abstract should provide a succinct summary of the article, no more than 200 words long<br />
<br />
* The article summary should provide a comprehensive overview of the article. If possible, include quotations (with footnotes). <br />
<br />
* Following the summary, the "Possible Implications" section is a space for a more subjective analysis of the article. While this should still be written in third person, feel free to propose alternative interpretations or links to outside sources that may be related to the article. <br />
<br />
* Lastly, end the article summary with the "References" section. Refer to the footnotes instructions at the end of the style guide for creating the references. <br />
<br />
* List article summaries in alphabetical order by author's last name.<br />
<br />
* Title should be the article title (within quotation marks), followed by the author's full name. (Example: "Definition of Man" by Kenneth Burke)<br />
<br />
* Link to the author's page somewhere within the summary.<br />
<br />
== Glossary ==<br />
<br />
* Bold the word being defined, followed by a colon<br />
<br />
* If using a word/definition from an article, link to the article summary using a parenthetical reference after the definition<br />
<br />
*Example definition-- '''Aesthetics''': study of the mind and emotions in relation to the sense of beauty (see [["The New Rhetoric: A Theory of Practical Reasoning" by Chaïm Perelman]])<br />
<br />
==Outside Resources==<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
== Author Pages ==<br />
<br />
* List authors in alphabetical order by Last Name. For links, write authors' names as Last Name, First Name.<br />
<br />
* Title should be the author's full name (include middle initials, if commonly used).<br />
<br />
* Repeat author's full name to start entry, followed by birth year and death year (if still living, write "present"). <br />
<br />
* Link to Article Summaries by that author under an "Article Summaries" Level 2 Headline.<br />
<br />
* Follow this general format for all Author Pages: summary, biography (including education, early life, family, occupations, awards, etc.), article summaries, additional works/ publications, further readings, references, and external links. Other sections can be added as desired (such as Notable Quotes). <br />
<br />
== Definitions of Rhetoric ==<br />
<br />
* List authors alphabetically by last name. (Example: Burke, Kenneth)<br />
<br />
* Do not use Level 2 Headlines for authors' name -- make the names '''bold'''.<br />
<br />
* Use a bulleted list for definitions beneath author's name.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
* Use a numbered list -- not a bulleted list.<br />
<br />
== Timeline ==<br />
<br />
* List authors by First Name, Last Name.<br />
<br />
* Link authors' names to their corresponding Authors Page.<br />
<br />
* List authors in order by birth date, from earliest to most current.<br />
<br />
==Footnotes==<br />
*Use these instructions to create footnotes: <br />
<br />
[[File:Footnotes_instructions.jpg]]</div>Jennifer Robichauxhttps://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Style_GuideStyle Guide2012-04-17T14:38:12Z<p>Jennifer Robichaux: /* Article Summaries */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Purpose of Style Guide==<br />
<br />
This style guide will enable wiki contributors to keep a consistent voice, style, and design when adding or editing content. To make the wiki as effective as possible, it is important for both writing and design to remain consistent and accessible. Refer to the following guidelines for rules on grammar, punctuation, headings, form, and layout. <br />
<br />
== Style Guidelines == <br />
<br />
* When adding a new page, give a brief description (one or two sentences) of what information is found on that page immediately beneath the title. <br />
<br />
* When using Level 2 Headlines, put one line space between the title and the first line entry.<br />
<br />
* For bulleted and numbered lists, put one space between the bullet point and the first word.<br />
<br />
* For bulleted and numbered lists, put one line space between entries.<br />
<br />
* For all headings (titles and level 2 headlines), use up-style. (Example: This Is How It Should Look / This is not how it should look)<br />
<br />
* In the convention of Wikipedia, at the bottom of each page, put "See Also" for links to other pages within the wiki and "External Links" in level 2 headlines for useful links that are not easily integrated into the body of text.<br />
<br />
==Writing Guidelines==<br />
<br />
* Follow the rules of American grammar and spelling.<br />
<br />
* Follow MLA style when using citations<br />
<br />
== Article Summaries ==<br />
<br />
* Should be written in third person<br />
<br />
* If using quotations, use footnotes to cite<br />
<br />
* If possible, use hyperlinks to link to an online source<br />
<br />
* Divide the article summary into four sections: Abstract, Summary, Possible Implications, and References<br />
<br />
* The abstract should provide a succinct summary of the article, no more than 200 words long<br />
<br />
* The article summary should provide a comprehensive overview of the article. If possible, include quotations (with footnotes). <br />
<br />
* Following the summary, the "Possible Implications" section is a space for a more subjective analysis of the article. While this should still be written in third person, feel free to propose alternative interpretations or links to outside sources that may be related to the article. <br />
<br />
* Lastly, end the article summary with the "References" section. Refer to the footnotes instructions at the end of the style guide for creating the references. <br />
<br />
* List article summaries in alphabetical order by author's last name.<br />
<br />
* Title should be the article title (within quotation marks), followed by the author's full name. (Example: "Definition of Man" by Kenneth Burke)<br />
<br />
* Link to the author's page somewhere within the summary.<br />
<br />
== Glossary ==<br />
<br />
* Bold the word being defined, followed by a colon<br />
<br />
* If using a word/definition from an article, link to the article summary using a parenthetical reference after the definition<br />
<br />
*Example definition-- '''Aesthetics''': study of the mind and emotions in relation to the sense of beauty (see [["The New Rhetoric: A Theory of Practical Reasoning" by Chaïm Perelman]])<br />
<br />
==Outside Resources==<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
== Author Pages ==<br />
<br />
* List authors in alphabetical order by Last Name. For links, write authors' names as Last Name, First Name.<br />
<br />
* Title should be the author's full name (include middle initials, if commonly used).<br />
<br />
* Repeat author's full name to start entry, followed by birth year and death year (if still living, write "present"). <br />
<br />
* Link to Article Summaries by that author under an "Article Summaries" Level 2 Headline.<br />
<br />
* Follow this general format for all Author Pages: summary, biography (including education, early life, family, occupations, awards, etc.), article summaries, additional works/ publications, further readings, references, and external links. Other sections can be added as desired (such as Notable Quotes). <br />
<br />
== Definitions of Rhetoric ==<br />
<br />
* List authors alphabetically by last name. (Example: Burke, Kenneth)<br />
<br />
* Do not use Level 2 Headlines for authors' name -- make the names '''bold'''.<br />
<br />
* Use a bulleted list for definitions beneath author's name.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
* Use a numbered list -- not a bulleted list.<br />
<br />
== Timeline ==<br />
<br />
* List authors by First Name, Last Name.<br />
<br />
* Link authors' names to their corresponding Authors Page.<br />
<br />
* List authors in order by birth date, from earliest to most current.<br />
<br />
==Footnotes==<br />
*Use these instructions to create footnotes: <br />
<br />
[[File:Footnotes_instructions.jpg]]</div>Jennifer Robichauxhttps://rhetorclick.com/wiki/DePew,_Kevin_Eric_%E2%80%9CThrough_the_Eyes_of_Researchers,_Rhetors,_and_Audiences%E2%80%9DDePew, Kevin Eric “Through the Eyes of Researchers, Rhetors, and Audiences”2012-04-17T14:34:02Z<p>Jennifer Robichaux: </p>
<hr />
<div>=Abstract=<br />
In his article, Kevin DePew discussed the ways in which the digital writing situation can be and is researched. He primarily discusses two different methods: triangulation and text analysis. DePew also discusses four different instances of digital writing research and the methods used to conduct the research. Within each section, DePew discusses how effective each method was and what it lacked.<ref> [DePew, Kevin. “Through the Eyes of Researchers, Rhetors, and Audiences: Triangulating Data from the <br />
Digital Writing Situation.” Professing the New Rhetorics: A Sourcebook. Ed. Theresa Enos and Stuart Brown. Prentice Hall, 1993. Print.] </ref> <br />
<br />
=Through the Eyes of Researchers, Rhetors, and Audiences=<br />
DePew begins by describing how digital research has previously been approached: the focus was mainly on the composition programs used by scholars to facilitate writing. Now, however, research is focused on the Internet, where writing is generated and communication facilitated. DePew argues that these new technologies signify a need for a shift in how we understand and study the rhetorical situation. Though many researchers have begun to look at how the rhetorical situation is affected by digital writing, the type of research has remained, for the most part, a textual analysis. Instead, researchers should take a broader approach to understanding digital writing--a triangulated approach. The triangular approach focuses on the rhetor, audience, digital text/discourse, and the context; this allows for a better, more comprehensive understanding of the digital writing. DePew supports this need for a triangulated approach by pointing out that all researchers bring with them personal experience, and it is nearly impossible for research to be completely unbiased. Data triangulation (sampling date from multiple sources) attempts to prevent the researchers biases (conscious or otherwise) from tainting the research. Method triangulation is similar in that it employs the use of multiple methods of research so as to avoid what DePew describes as “single-voicedness.”<br />
<br />
=Possible Implications=<br />
DePew’s ideas about digital writing research are extremely important and should be considered for implementation in the classroom. As demonstrated by the research example of McKee, the triangulated approach allows for a deeper understanding of the subject and forces the researchers to go beyond already established rhetorical theory. DePew’s values are similar to that of Carl Rogers, in that both individuals are concerned with achieving a comprehensive understanding. DePew is fighting against the research tendency to only conduct research that supports the researcher’s opinion, and Rogers is fighting against the individual’s tendency to ignoring the opposing point of view. Writing students could greatly benefit from understanding DePew and Rogers’ theories.<br />
<br />
=References=<br />
<references/></div>Jennifer Robichauxhttps://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Ohmann,_Richard_%E2%80%9CIn_Lieu_of_a_New_Rhetoric%E2%80%9DOhmann, Richard “In Lieu of a New Rhetoric”2012-04-17T14:30:46Z<p>Jennifer Robichaux: </p>
<hr />
<div>=Abstract=<br />
Ohmann is not interested in identifying a new rhetoric, instead he identifies the ways in which new rhetorical theories resemble one another. Ohmann points to five attributes that are common amongst proposed “new rhetorics.” The first commonality is that new rhetoric bridges the gap between rhetor and audience, allowing for “cooperation, mutuality, social harmony." <ref> [Ohmann, Richard. “In Lieu of a New Rhetoric.” '''Professing the New Rhetorics: A Sourcebook'''. Ed. Theresa Enos and Stuart Brown. Prentice Hall, 1993. Print. ] </ref> This is in contrast to traditional rhetoric which emphasizes the separation of speaker and audience. The second attribute is modern rhetoric’s pursuit of truth and right. Third, modern rhetoric is not concerned with persuasion, as the modern rhetor must seek self-discovery (which cannot be achieved through deception). Fourth, rhetoric is a “product as a revelation of the writer’s mind and of his moral character.” To modern theorists, rhetoric is a vessel for conveying the speaker’s genuine nature. And last, modern rhetoric creates community comprised of shared ideas, attitudes, modes of perception, though, and feeling--a world view. <br />
<br />
= In Lieu of a New Rhetoric =<br />
In “In Lieu of a New Rhetoric,” [[Richard Ohmann]] starts by acknowledging the past perceptions of rhetoric as a “mysterious power” and as a “calculated procedure” bond in the similar characteristic of dealing with persuasion (298). He continues by contrasting the views of many of the new rhetoricians like I.A. Richards, Daniel Fogarty, and Richard Weaver--to name a few. He then states his purpose: “suggest one way in which contemporary ideas of rhetoric...resemble each other more than any of them resembles older ideas” (300). This similarity between the contemporary ideas is that they open the term rhetoric to incorporate a broader spectrum of linguistic activity; this is different from the classical view of rhetoric as persuasion. Ohmann outlines these relationships using five aspects: the relationship between the rhetor and the audience in which new rhetoric encompasses a more mutual relationship, rhetoric as a pursuit versus the transmission of truth, candor as a necessary condition of making rhetoric, the attribution of how much a work reflects the author (only in style says new rhetoricians), and rhetoric reflecting the concepts of a world view (of the world, community, group, or an individual). Ohmann continues to discuss rhetoric in terms of teaching freshman-level college students. He states that the current methods of grammarian rules, etc. are not affective in the classroom. Rather, he proposes a “four-part framework” for teaching freshman. First, the students must understand “the relationship between a piece of writing and its content.Then, they should be taught the “relationship between a piece of writing and its author” and its relationship with the audience (304). And, final idea they should learn is that of the world views previously discussed by Ohmann.<br />
<br />
= Possible Implications =<br />
Ohmann’s final attribute of modern rhetoric, the ability to create a worldview, was most intriguing as there is evidence of this nearly everywhere. Of course, the most readily available example is social media. Online rhetoric has the ability to create communities, shape worldviews, and bridge the gap between speaker and audience. Take, for example, the “It Gets Better” campaign. It began as a series of online videos in response to some very publicized cases of teen suicide, specifically GLBT teens who had been bullied. The videos sought to create community between GLBT teens and older GLBT men and women who had experienced bullying or dealt with depression/ thoughts of suicide. This rhetoric was extremely successful at fostering both community and a worldview. Now, there is an “It Gets Better” reality show on MTV that will bring this message to a broader audience. <br />
<br />
=References=<br />
<references/></div>Jennifer Robichauxhttps://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Ohmann,_Richard_%E2%80%9CIn_Lieu_of_a_New_Rhetoric%E2%80%9DOhmann, Richard “In Lieu of a New Rhetoric”2012-04-17T14:30:15Z<p>Jennifer Robichaux: /* References */</p>
<hr />
<div>=Abstract=<br />
Ohmann is not interested in identifying a new rhetoric, instead he identifies the ways in which new rhetorical theories resemble one another. Ohmann points to five attributes that are common amongst proposed “new rhetorics.” The first commonality is that new rhetoric bridges the gap between rhetor and audience, allowing for “cooperation, mutuality, social harmony." <ref> [Ohmann, Richard. “In Lieu of a New Rhetoric.” '''Professing the New Rhetorics: A Sourcebook'''. Ed. Theresa Enos and Stuart Brown. Prentice Hall, 1993. Print. ] </ref> This is in contrast to traditional rhetoric which emphasizes the separation of speaker and audience. The second attribute is modern rhetoric’s pursuit of truth and right. Third, modern rhetoric is not concerned with persuasion, as the modern rhetor must seek self-discovery (which cannot be achieved through deception). Fourth, rhetoric is a “product as a revelation of the writer’s mind and of his moral character.” To modern theorists, rhetoric is a vessel for conveying the speaker’s genuine nature. And last, modern rhetoric creates community comprised of shared ideas, attitudes, modes of perception, though, and feeling--a world view. <br />
<br />
== In Lieu of a New Rhetoric ==<br />
In “In Lieu of a New Rhetoric,” [[Richard Ohmann]] starts by acknowledging the past perceptions of rhetoric as a “mysterious power” and as a “calculated procedure” bond in the similar characteristic of dealing with persuasion (298). He continues by contrasting the views of many of the new rhetoricians like I.A. Richards, Daniel Fogarty, and Richard Weaver--to name a few. He then states his purpose: “suggest one way in which contemporary ideas of rhetoric...resemble each other more than any of them resembles older ideas” (300). This similarity between the contemporary ideas is that they open the term rhetoric to incorporate a broader spectrum of linguistic activity; this is different from the classical view of rhetoric as persuasion. Ohmann outlines these relationships using five aspects: the relationship between the rhetor and the audience in which new rhetoric encompasses a more mutual relationship, rhetoric as a pursuit versus the transmission of truth, candor as a necessary condition of making rhetoric, the attribution of how much a work reflects the author (only in style says new rhetoricians), and rhetoric reflecting the concepts of a world view (of the world, community, group, or an individual). Ohmann continues to discuss rhetoric in terms of teaching freshman-level college students. He states that the current methods of grammarian rules, etc. are not affective in the classroom. Rather, he proposes a “four-part framework” for teaching freshman. First, the students must understand “the relationship between a piece of writing and its content.Then, they should be taught the “relationship between a piece of writing and its author” and its relationship with the audience (304). And, final idea they should learn is that of the world views previously discussed by Ohmann.<br />
<br />
== Possible Implications == <br />
Ohmann’s final attribute of modern rhetoric, the ability to create a worldview, was most intriguing as there is evidence of this nearly everywhere. Of course, the most readily available example is social media. Online rhetoric has the ability to create communities, shape worldviews, and bridge the gap between speaker and audience. Take, for example, the “It Gets Better” campaign. It began as a series of online videos in response to some very publicized cases of teen suicide, specifically GLBT teens who had been bullied. The videos sought to create community between GLBT teens and older GLBT men and women who had experienced bullying or dealt with depression/ thoughts of suicide. This rhetoric was extremely successful at fostering both community and a worldview. Now, there is an “It Gets Better” reality show on MTV that will bring this message to a broader audience. <br />
<br />
=References=<br />
<references/></div>Jennifer Robichauxhttps://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Ohmann,_Richard_%E2%80%9CIn_Lieu_of_a_New_Rhetoric%E2%80%9DOhmann, Richard “In Lieu of a New Rhetoric”2012-04-17T14:29:52Z<p>Jennifer Robichaux: </p>
<hr />
<div>=Abstract=<br />
Ohmann is not interested in identifying a new rhetoric, instead he identifies the ways in which new rhetorical theories resemble one another. Ohmann points to five attributes that are common amongst proposed “new rhetorics.” The first commonality is that new rhetoric bridges the gap between rhetor and audience, allowing for “cooperation, mutuality, social harmony." <ref> [Ohmann, Richard. “In Lieu of a New Rhetoric.” '''Professing the New Rhetorics: A Sourcebook'''. Ed. Theresa Enos and Stuart Brown. Prentice Hall, 1993. Print. ] </ref> This is in contrast to traditional rhetoric which emphasizes the separation of speaker and audience. The second attribute is modern rhetoric’s pursuit of truth and right. Third, modern rhetoric is not concerned with persuasion, as the modern rhetor must seek self-discovery (which cannot be achieved through deception). Fourth, rhetoric is a “product as a revelation of the writer’s mind and of his moral character.” To modern theorists, rhetoric is a vessel for conveying the speaker’s genuine nature. And last, modern rhetoric creates community comprised of shared ideas, attitudes, modes of perception, though, and feeling--a world view. <br />
<br />
== In Lieu of a New Rhetoric ==<br />
In “In Lieu of a New Rhetoric,” [[Richard Ohmann]] starts by acknowledging the past perceptions of rhetoric as a “mysterious power” and as a “calculated procedure” bond in the similar characteristic of dealing with persuasion (298). He continues by contrasting the views of many of the new rhetoricians like I.A. Richards, Daniel Fogarty, and Richard Weaver--to name a few. He then states his purpose: “suggest one way in which contemporary ideas of rhetoric...resemble each other more than any of them resembles older ideas” (300). This similarity between the contemporary ideas is that they open the term rhetoric to incorporate a broader spectrum of linguistic activity; this is different from the classical view of rhetoric as persuasion. Ohmann outlines these relationships using five aspects: the relationship between the rhetor and the audience in which new rhetoric encompasses a more mutual relationship, rhetoric as a pursuit versus the transmission of truth, candor as a necessary condition of making rhetoric, the attribution of how much a work reflects the author (only in style says new rhetoricians), and rhetoric reflecting the concepts of a world view (of the world, community, group, or an individual). Ohmann continues to discuss rhetoric in terms of teaching freshman-level college students. He states that the current methods of grammarian rules, etc. are not affective in the classroom. Rather, he proposes a “four-part framework” for teaching freshman. First, the students must understand “the relationship between a piece of writing and its content.Then, they should be taught the “relationship between a piece of writing and its author” and its relationship with the audience (304). And, final idea they should learn is that of the world views previously discussed by Ohmann.<br />
<br />
== Possible Implications == <br />
Ohmann’s final attribute of modern rhetoric, the ability to create a worldview, was most intriguing as there is evidence of this nearly everywhere. Of course, the most readily available example is social media. Online rhetoric has the ability to create communities, shape worldviews, and bridge the gap between speaker and audience. Take, for example, the “It Gets Better” campaign. It began as a series of online videos in response to some very publicized cases of teen suicide, specifically GLBT teens who had been bullied. The videos sought to create community between GLBT teens and older GLBT men and women who had experienced bullying or dealt with depression/ thoughts of suicide. This rhetoric was extremely successful at fostering both community and a worldview. Now, there is an “It Gets Better” reality show on MTV that will bring this message to a broader audience. <br />
<br />
=References=<br />
</ref></div>Jennifer Robichauxhttps://rhetorclick.com/wiki/McKeon,_Richard_%E2%80%9CThe_Uses_of_Rhetoric_in_a_Technological_Age:_Architectonic_Productive_Arts%E2%80%9DMcKeon, Richard “The Uses of Rhetoric in a Technological Age: Architectonic Productive Arts”2012-04-17T14:24:29Z<p>Jennifer Robichaux: /* Possible Implications */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Abstract ==<br />
In his article, McKeon discusses the importance of creating a new rhetoric that acts as a productive architectonic art rather than a subordinate art. He says, “If rhetoric is to be used to contribute to the formation of the culture of the modern world, it should function productively in the resolution of new problems and architectonically<ref> [http://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Glossary]</ref> in the formation of new inclusive communities” (127). McKeon argued that in order to deal with the changes in an age of technology, we must develop a new rhetoric that is productive in solving problems and communicating solutions.<ref> [McKeon, Richard. “The Uses of Rhetoric in a Technological Age: Architectonic Productive Arts.”'' Professing the New Rhetorics: A Sourcebook''. Ed. Theresa Enos and Stuart Brown. Prentice Hall, 1993. Print.]</ref>.<br />
<br />
== The Uses of Rhetoric in a Technological Age: Architectonic Product ==<br />
McKeon identifies rhetoric as an architectonic art: “an art of structuring all principles and products of knowing, doing and making” (127). McKeon’s idea of modern rhetoric is productive, one capable of contributing to modern culture by addressing problems and fostering community. The author is concerned with a rhetoric that is both structured and capable of creating structure. Though the author has identified rhetoric as architectonic, he has also identified the need for a new architectonic productive art (rhetoric). The new art should be universal, and he calls for a logos of techne, or theory applied. While theory and practice have historically been separated, McKeon seeks to unify these two under the umbrella of the architectonic productive art. This is all to say that McKeon’s hope for an architectonic productive art is a hope for social change. The last paragraph of this essay (as it seems is the case with most of these essays on rhetorical theory) is a glimmer of hope for the future of rhetoric. “in a technological age all men should have an art of creativity, of judgment, of disposition, and of organization” (144). This art should, as McKeon says, be used for both the individual and community to achieve new ends and “eliminate oppositions and segregations based on past competitions for scarce means” (144).<br />
<br />
== Possible Implications ==<br />
While ending opposition and segregation is rather a lofty goal for the use of rhetoric, McKeon's idea is indicative of a kind of shift toward morals and ethics within rhetoric. McKeon is concerned with the application of rhetoric to not only organize and create but also to solve social issues. He is trying to remove rhetoric from it’s long history of being associated with persuasion, manipulation, and malicious intentions. McKeon’s rhetoric is bigger than language or a communication--it is social change. The one thing McKeon’s essay didn't address is who is responsible for identifying social ills and implementing the new architectonic productive art to solve these problems. Are rhetoricians, by name, now to be social advocates? Is that our responsibility as a people capable of using language to identify problems and prescribe solutions? Is it selfish of us to only use rhetoric to further our own ideas and agendas?<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/></div>Jennifer Robichauxhttps://rhetorclick.com/wiki/McKeon,_Richard_%E2%80%9CThe_Uses_of_Rhetoric_in_a_Technological_Age:_Architectonic_Productive_Arts%E2%80%9DMcKeon, Richard “The Uses of Rhetoric in a Technological Age: Architectonic Productive Arts”2012-04-17T14:22:56Z<p>Jennifer Robichaux: /* Abstract */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Abstract ==<br />
In his article, McKeon discusses the importance of creating a new rhetoric that acts as a productive architectonic art rather than a subordinate art. He says, “If rhetoric is to be used to contribute to the formation of the culture of the modern world, it should function productively in the resolution of new problems and architectonically<ref> [http://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Glossary]</ref> in the formation of new inclusive communities” (127). McKeon argued that in order to deal with the changes in an age of technology, we must develop a new rhetoric that is productive in solving problems and communicating solutions.<ref> [McKeon, Richard. “The Uses of Rhetoric in a Technological Age: Architectonic Productive Arts.”'' Professing the New Rhetorics: A Sourcebook''. Ed. Theresa Enos and Stuart Brown. Prentice Hall, 1993. Print.]</ref>.<br />
<br />
== The Uses of Rhetoric in a Technological Age: Architectonic Product ==<br />
McKeon identifies rhetoric as an architectonic art: “an art of structuring all principles and products of knowing, doing and making” (127). McKeon’s idea of modern rhetoric is productive, one capable of contributing to modern culture by addressing problems and fostering community. The author is concerned with a rhetoric that is both structured and capable of creating structure. Though the author has identified rhetoric as architectonic, he has also identified the need for a new architectonic productive art (rhetoric). The new art should be universal, and he calls for a logos of techne, or theory applied. While theory and practice have historically been separated, McKeon seeks to unify these two under the umbrella of the architectonic productive art. This is all to say that McKeon’s hope for an architectonic productive art is a hope for social change. The last paragraph of this essay (as it seems is the case with most of these essays on rhetorical theory) is a glimmer of hope for the future of rhetoric. “in a technological age all men should have an art of creativity, of judgment, of disposition, and of organization” (144). This art should, as McKeon says, be used for both the individual and community to achieve new ends and “eliminate oppositions and segregations based on past competitions for scarce means” (144).<br />
<br />
== Possible Implications ==<br />
While ending opposition and segregation is rather a lofty goal for the use of rhetoric, I think it is indicative of a kind of shift toward morals and ethics within rhetoric. McKeon is concerned with the application of rhetoric to not only organize and create but also to solve social issues. He is trying to remove rhetoric from it’s long history of being associated with persuasion, manipulation, and malicious intentions. McKeon’s rhetoric is bigger than language or a communication--it is social change. The one thing I feel McKeon’s essay lacked was stating exactly who is responsible for identifying social ills and implementing the new architectonic productive art to solve these problems. Are rhetoricians, by name, now to be social advocates? Is that our responsibility as a people capable of using language to identify problems and prescribe solutions? Is it selfish of us to only use rhetoric to further our own ideas and agendas? Though I don’t think all rhetoricians should be (our could be) social advocates, I do think it is important for us to use our skills for something bigger and better than ourselves or our studies. I am extremely grateful to have an education that marries both writing and rhetoric, and I feel capable of using that rhetorical skill for work that might affect social change.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/></div>Jennifer Robichauxhttps://rhetorclick.com/wiki/McKeon,_Richard_%E2%80%9CThe_Uses_of_Rhetoric_in_a_Technological_Age:_Architectonic_Productive_Arts%E2%80%9DMcKeon, Richard “The Uses of Rhetoric in a Technological Age: Architectonic Productive Arts”2012-04-17T14:20:55Z<p>Jennifer Robichaux: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Abstract ==<br />
In his article, McKeon discusses the importance of creating a new rhetoric that acts as a productive architectonic art rather than a subordinate art. He says, “If rhetoric is to be used to contribute to the formation of the culture of the modern world, it should function productively in the resolution of new problems and architectonically<ref> [http://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Glossary]</ref> in the formation of new inclusive communities” (127). McKeon argued that in order to deal with the changes in an age of technology, we must develop a new rhetoric that is productive in solving problems and communicating solutions. He states, “[the new rhetoric] should be adapted to [man’s] individual development and to their contribution to forming a common field in which the subject of inquiry is not how to devise means to achieve accepted end arranged in hierarchies but the calculation of uses and applications that might be made of the vastly increased available means in order to devise new ends and to eliminate oppositions and segregations based on past competitions for scarce means” (144). He believes that in this technological era, rhetoric must bridge the gap between logos and techne<ref> [McKeon, Richard. “The Uses of Rhetoric in a Technological Age: Architectonic Productive Arts.”'' Professing the New Rhetorics: A Sourcebook''. Ed. Theresa Enos and Stuart Brown. Prentice Hall, 1993. Print.]</ref>.<br />
<br />
== The Uses of Rhetoric in a Technological Age: Architectonic Product ==<br />
McKeon identifies rhetoric as an architectonic art: “an art of structuring all principles and products of knowing, doing and making” (127). McKeon’s idea of modern rhetoric is productive, one capable of contributing to modern culture by addressing problems and fostering community. The author is concerned with a rhetoric that is both structured and capable of creating structure. Though the author has identified rhetoric as architectonic, he has also identified the need for a new architectonic productive art (rhetoric). The new art should be universal, and he calls for a logos of techne, or theory applied. While theory and practice have historically been separated, McKeon seeks to unify these two under the umbrella of the architectonic productive art. This is all to say that McKeon’s hope for an architectonic productive art is a hope for social change. The last paragraph of this essay (as it seems is the case with most of these essays on rhetorical theory) is a glimmer of hope for the future of rhetoric. “in a technological age all men should have an art of creativity, of judgment, of disposition, and of organization” (144). This art should, as McKeon says, be used for both the individual and community to achieve new ends and “eliminate oppositions and segregations based on past competitions for scarce means” (144).<br />
<br />
== Possible Implications ==<br />
While ending opposition and segregation is rather a lofty goal for the use of rhetoric, I think it is indicative of a kind of shift toward morals and ethics within rhetoric. McKeon is concerned with the application of rhetoric to not only organize and create but also to solve social issues. He is trying to remove rhetoric from it’s long history of being associated with persuasion, manipulation, and malicious intentions. McKeon’s rhetoric is bigger than language or a communication--it is social change. The one thing I feel McKeon’s essay lacked was stating exactly who is responsible for identifying social ills and implementing the new architectonic productive art to solve these problems. Are rhetoricians, by name, now to be social advocates? Is that our responsibility as a people capable of using language to identify problems and prescribe solutions? Is it selfish of us to only use rhetoric to further our own ideas and agendas? Though I don’t think all rhetoricians should be (our could be) social advocates, I do think it is important for us to use our skills for something bigger and better than ourselves or our studies. I am extremely grateful to have an education that marries both writing and rhetoric, and I feel capable of using that rhetorical skill for work that might affect social change.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/></div>Jennifer Robichauxhttps://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Style_GuideStyle Guide2012-04-17T02:16:37Z<p>Jennifer Robichaux: /* Footnotes */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Purpose of Style Guide==<br />
<br />
This style guide will enable wiki contributors to keep a consistent voice, style, and design when adding or editing content. To make the wiki as effective as possible, it is important for both writing and design to remain consistent and accessible. Refer to the following guidelines for rules on grammar, punctuation, headings, form, and layout. <br />
<br />
== Style Guidelines == <br />
<br />
* When adding a new page, give a brief description (one or two sentences) of what information is found on that page immediately beneath the title. <br />
<br />
* When using Level 2 Headlines, put one line space between the title and the first line entry.<br />
<br />
* For bulleted and numbered lists, put one space between the bullet point and the first word.<br />
<br />
* For bulleted and numbered lists, put one line space between entries.<br />
<br />
* For all headings (titles and level 2 headlines), use up-style. (Example: This Is How It Should Look / This is not how it should look)<br />
<br />
* In the convention of Wikipedia, at the bottom of each page, put "See Also" for links to other pages within the wiki and "External Links" in level 2 headlines for useful links that are not easily integrated into the body of text.<br />
<br />
==Writing Guidelines==<br />
<br />
* Follow the rules of American grammar and spelling.<br />
<br />
* Follow MLA style when using citations<br />
<br />
== Article Summaries ==<br />
<br />
* Should be written in third person<br />
<br />
* If using quotations, use footnotes to cite<br />
<br />
* If possible, use hyperlinks to link to an online source<br />
<br />
* Divide the article summary into three sections: Abstract, Summary, and Possible Implications<br />
<br />
* The abstract should provide a succinct summary of the article, no more than 200 words long<br />
<br />
* The article summary should provide a comprehensive overview of the article. If possible, include quotations (with citations). <br />
<br />
* Following the summary, the "Possible Implications" section is a space for a more subjective analysis of the article. While this should still be written in third person, feel free to propose alternative interpretations or links to outside sources that may be related to the article. <br />
<br />
* List article summaries in alphabetical order by author's last name.<br />
<br />
* Title should be the article title (within quotation marks), followed by the author's full name. (Example: "Definition of Man" by Kenneth Burke)<br />
<br />
* Use a bold sub-heading (not a level 2 headline) for "Summary" section.<br />
<br />
* Link to the author's page at the bottom of the entry using the following sentence: For more information, visit: [link to author's page].<br />
<br />
* Include a section for "Possible Implications" after the summary so contributors can share their opinions about the readings. The section heading should look as follows: '''Additional Thoughts''' (Feel free to add your opinions here!)<br />
<br />
== Glossary ==<br />
<br />
* Bold the word being defined, followed by a colon<br />
<br />
* If using a word/definition from an article, link to the article summary using a parenthetical reference after the definition<br />
<br />
*Example definition-- '''Aesthetics''': study of the mind and emotions in relation to the sense of beauty (see [["The New Rhetoric: A Theory of Practical Reasoning" by Chaïm Perelman]])<br />
<br />
==Outside Resources==<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
== Author Pages ==<br />
<br />
* List authors in alphabetical order by Last Name. For links, write authors' names as Last Name, First Name.<br />
<br />
* Title should be the author's full name (include middle initials, if commonly used).<br />
<br />
* Repeat author's full name to start entry, followed by birth year and death year (if still living, write "present"). <br />
<br />
* Link to Article Summaries by that author under an "Article Summaries" Level 2 Headline.<br />
<br />
* Follow this general format for all Author Pages: summary, biography (including education, early life, family, occupations, awards, etc.), article summaries, additional works/ publications, further readings, references, and external links. Other sections can be added as desired (such as Notable Quotes). <br />
<br />
== Definitions of Rhetoric ==<br />
<br />
* List authors alphabetically by last name. (Example: Burke, Kenneth)<br />
<br />
* Do not use Level 2 Headlines for authors' name -- make the names '''bold'''.<br />
<br />
* Use a bulleted list for definitions beneath author's name.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
* Use a numbered list -- not a bulleted list.<br />
<br />
== Timeline ==<br />
<br />
* List authors by First Name, Last Name.<br />
<br />
* Link authors' names to their corresponding Authors Page.<br />
<br />
* List authors in order by birth date, from earliest to most current.<br />
<br />
==Footnotes==<br />
*Use these instructions to create footnotes: <br />
<br />
[[File:Footnotes_instructions.jpg]]</div>Jennifer Robichauxhttps://rhetorclick.com/wiki/File:Footnotes_instructions.jpgFile:Footnotes instructions.jpg2012-04-17T02:15:38Z<p>Jennifer Robichaux: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Jennifer Robichauxhttps://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Style_GuideStyle Guide2012-04-17T02:14:18Z<p>Jennifer Robichaux: /* Footnotes */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Purpose of Style Guide==<br />
<br />
This style guide will enable wiki contributors to keep a consistent voice, style, and design when adding or editing content. To make the wiki as effective as possible, it is important for both writing and design to remain consistent and accessible. Refer to the following guidelines for rules on grammar, punctuation, headings, form, and layout. <br />
<br />
== Style Guidelines == <br />
<br />
* When adding a new page, give a brief description (one or two sentences) of what information is found on that page immediately beneath the title. <br />
<br />
* When using Level 2 Headlines, put one line space between the title and the first line entry.<br />
<br />
* For bulleted and numbered lists, put one space between the bullet point and the first word.<br />
<br />
* For bulleted and numbered lists, put one line space between entries.<br />
<br />
* For all headings (titles and level 2 headlines), use up-style. (Example: This Is How It Should Look / This is not how it should look)<br />
<br />
* In the convention of Wikipedia, at the bottom of each page, put "See Also" for links to other pages within the wiki and "External Links" in level 2 headlines for useful links that are not easily integrated into the body of text.<br />
<br />
==Writing Guidelines==<br />
<br />
* Follow the rules of American grammar and spelling.<br />
<br />
* Follow MLA style when using citations<br />
<br />
== Article Summaries ==<br />
<br />
* Should be written in third person<br />
<br />
* If using quotations, use footnotes to cite<br />
<br />
* If possible, use hyperlinks to link to an online source<br />
<br />
* Divide the article summary into three sections: Abstract, Summary, and Possible Implications<br />
<br />
* The abstract should provide a succinct summary of the article, no more than 200 words long<br />
<br />
* The article summary should provide a comprehensive overview of the article. If possible, include quotations (with citations). <br />
<br />
* Following the summary, the "Possible Implications" section is a space for a more subjective analysis of the article. While this should still be written in third person, feel free to propose alternative interpretations or links to outside sources that may be related to the article. <br />
<br />
* List article summaries in alphabetical order by author's last name.<br />
<br />
* Title should be the article title (within quotation marks), followed by the author's full name. (Example: "Definition of Man" by Kenneth Burke)<br />
<br />
* Use a bold sub-heading (not a level 2 headline) for "Summary" section.<br />
<br />
* Link to the author's page at the bottom of the entry using the following sentence: For more information, visit: [link to author's page].<br />
<br />
* Include a section for "Possible Implications" after the summary so contributors can share their opinions about the readings. The section heading should look as follows: '''Additional Thoughts''' (Feel free to add your opinions here!)<br />
<br />
== Glossary ==<br />
<br />
* Bold the word being defined, followed by a colon<br />
<br />
* If using a word/definition from an article, link to the article summary using a parenthetical reference after the definition<br />
<br />
*Example definition-- '''Aesthetics''': study of the mind and emotions in relation to the sense of beauty (see [["The New Rhetoric: A Theory of Practical Reasoning" by Chaïm Perelman]])<br />
<br />
==Outside Resources==<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
== Author Pages ==<br />
<br />
* List authors in alphabetical order by Last Name. For links, write authors' names as Last Name, First Name.<br />
<br />
* Title should be the author's full name (include middle initials, if commonly used).<br />
<br />
* Repeat author's full name to start entry, followed by birth year and death year (if still living, write "present"). <br />
<br />
* Link to Article Summaries by that author under an "Article Summaries" Level 2 Headline.<br />
<br />
* Follow this general format for all Author Pages: summary, biography (including education, early life, family, occupations, awards, etc.), article summaries, additional works/ publications, further readings, references, and external links. Other sections can be added as desired (such as Notable Quotes). <br />
<br />
== Definitions of Rhetoric ==<br />
<br />
* List authors alphabetically by last name. (Example: Burke, Kenneth)<br />
<br />
* Do not use Level 2 Headlines for authors' name -- make the names '''bold'''.<br />
<br />
* Use a bulleted list for definitions beneath author's name.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
* Use a numbered list -- not a bulleted list.<br />
<br />
== Timeline ==<br />
<br />
* List authors by First Name, Last Name.<br />
<br />
* Link authors' names to their corresponding Authors Page.<br />
<br />
* List authors in order by birth date, from earliest to most current.<br />
<br />
==Footnotes==<br />
<br />
*<ref> [http://URL HERE.com] </ref><br />
<br />
*References (footnotes) <references/> <br />
<br />
*External links<br />
<br />
*[[http://tinypic.com?ref=30xhk5v" target="_blank"><img src="http://i41.tinypic.com/30xhk5v.jpg" border="0" alt="Image and video hosting by TinyPic]]</div>Jennifer Robichauxhttps://rhetorclick.com/wiki/McKeon,_Richard_%E2%80%9CThe_Uses_of_Rhetoric_in_a_Technological_Age:_Architectonic_Productive_Arts%E2%80%9DMcKeon, Richard “The Uses of Rhetoric in a Technological Age: Architectonic Productive Arts”2012-04-17T02:10:44Z<p>Jennifer Robichaux: </p>
<hr />
<div>=Abstract=<br />
In his article, McKeon discusses the importance of creating a new rhetoric that acts as a productive architectonic art rather than a subordinate art. He says, “If rhetoric is to be used to contribute to the formation of the culture of the modern world, it should function productively in the resolution of new problems and architectonically in the formation of new inclusive communities” (127). McKeon argued that in order to deal with the changes in an age of technology, we must develop a new rhetoric that is productive in solving problems and communicating solutions. He states, “[the new rhetoric] should be adapted to [man’s] individual development and to their contribution to forming a common field in which the subject of inquiry is not how to devise means to achieve accepted end arranged in hierarchies but the calculation of uses and applications that might be made of the vastly increased available means in order to devise new ends and to eliminate oppositions and segregations based on past competitions for scarce means” (144). He believes that in this technological era, rhetoric must bridge the gap between logos and techne (135) <ref> [http://home.uchicago.edu/~ahkissel/mckeon/mckeon.html] </ref>.<br />
<br />
=The Uses of Rhetoric in a Technological Age: Architectonic Product=<br />
McKeon identifies rhetoric as an architectonic art: “an art of structuring all principles and products of knowing, doing and making” (127). McKeon’s idea of modern rhetoric is productive, one capable of contributing to modern culture by addressing problems and fostering community. The author is concerned with a rhetoric that is both structured and capable of creating structure. Though the author has identified rhetoric as architectonic, he has also identified the need for a new architectonic productive art (rhetoric). The new art should be universal, and he calls for a logos of techne, or theory applied. While theory and practice have historically been separated, McKeon seeks to unify these two under the umbrella of the architectonic productive art. This is all to say that McKeon’s hope for an architectonic productive art is a hope for social change. The last paragraph of this essay (as it seems is the case with most of these essays on rhetorical theory) is a glimmer of hope for the future of rhetoric. “in a technological age all men should have an art of creativity, of judgment, of disposition, and of organization” (144). This art should, as McKeon says, be used for both the individual and community to achieve new ends and “eliminate oppositions and segregations based on past competitions for scarce means” (144).<br />
<br />
=Possible Implications=<br />
While ending opposition and segregation is rather a lofty goal for the use of rhetoric, I think it is indicative of a kind of shift toward morals and ethics within rhetoric. McKeon is concerned with the application of rhetoric to not only organize and create but also to solve social issues. He is trying to remove rhetoric from it’s long history of being associated with persuasion, manipulation, and malicious intentions. McKeon’s rhetoric is bigger than language or a communication--it is social change. The one thing I feel McKeon’s essay lacked was stating exactly who is responsible for identifying social ills and implementing the new architectonic productive art to solve these problems. Are rhetoricians, by name, now to be social advocates? Is that our responsibility as a people capable of using language to identify problems and prescribe solutions? Is it selfish of us to only use rhetoric to further our own ideas and agendas? Though I don’t think all rhetoricians should be (our could be) social advocates, I do think it is important for us to use our skills for something bigger and better than ourselves or our studies. I am extremely grateful to have an education that marries both writing and rhetoric, and I feel capable of using that rhetorical skill for work that might affect social change.<br />
<br />
=References=<br />
<references/></div>Jennifer Robichauxhttps://rhetorclick.com/wiki/McKeon,_Richard_%E2%80%9CThe_Uses_of_Rhetoric_in_a_Technological_Age:_Architectonic_Productive_Arts%E2%80%9DMcKeon, Richard “The Uses of Rhetoric in a Technological Age: Architectonic Productive Arts”2012-04-17T01:56:47Z<p>Jennifer Robichaux: </p>
<hr />
<div>=Abstract=<br />
In his article, McKeon discusses the importance of creating a new rhetoric that acts as a productive architectonic art rather than a subordinate art. He says, “If rhetoric is to be used to contribute to the formation of the culture of the modern world, it should function productively in the resolution of new problems and architectonically in the formation of new inclusive communities” (127). McKeon argued that in order to deal with the changes in an age of technology, we must develop a new rhetoric that is productive in solving problems and communicating solutions. He states, “[the new rhetoric] should be adapted to [man’s] individual development and to their contribution to forming a common field in which the subject of inquiry is not how to devise means to achieve accepted end arranged in hierarchies but the calculation of uses and applications that might be made of the vastly increased available means in order to devise new ends and to eliminate oppositions and segregations based on past competitions for scarce means” (144). He believes that in this technological era, rhetoric must bridge the gap between logos and techne (135).<br />
<br />
=The Uses of Rhetoric in a Technological Age: Architectonic Product=<br />
McKeon identifies rhetoric as an architectonic art: “an art of structuring all principles and products of knowing, doing and making” (127). McKeon’s idea of modern rhetoric is productive, one capable of contributing to modern culture by addressing problems and fostering community. The author is concerned with a rhetoric that is both structured and capable of creating structure. Though the author has identified rhetoric as architectonic, he has also identified the need for a new architectonic productive art (rhetoric). The new art should be universal, and he calls for a logos of techne, or theory applied. While theory and practice have historically been separated, McKeon seeks to unify these two under the umbrella of the architectonic productive art. This is all to say that McKeon’s hope for an architectonic productive art is a hope for social change. The last paragraph of this essay (as it seems is the case with most of these essays on rhetorical theory) is a glimmer of hope for the future of rhetoric. “in a technological age all men should have an art of creativity, of judgment, of disposition, and of organization” (144). This art should, as McKeon says, be used for both the individual and community to achieve new ends and “eliminate oppositions and segregations based on past competitions for scarce means” (144).<br />
<br />
=Possible Implications=<br />
While ending opposition and segregation is rather a lofty goal for the use of rhetoric, I think it is indicative of a kind of shift toward morals and ethics within rhetoric. McKeon is concerned with the application of rhetoric to not only organize and create but also to solve social issues. He is trying to remove rhetoric from it’s long history of being associated with persuasion, manipulation, and malicious intentions. McKeon’s rhetoric is bigger than language or a communication--it is social change. The one thing I feel McKeon’s essay lacked was stating exactly who is responsible for identifying social ills and implementing the new architectonic productive art to solve these problems. Are rhetoricians, by name, now to be social advocates? Is that our responsibility as a people capable of using language to identify problems and prescribe solutions? Is it selfish of us to only use rhetoric to further our own ideas and agendas? Though I don’t think all rhetoricians should be (our could be) social advocates, I do think it is important for us to use our skills for something bigger and better than ourselves or our studies. I am extremely grateful to have an education that marries both writing and rhetoric, and I feel capable of using that rhetorical skill for work that might affect social change.</div>Jennifer Robichauxhttps://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Ohmann,_Richard_%E2%80%9CIn_Lieu_of_a_New_Rhetoric%E2%80%9DOhmann, Richard “In Lieu of a New Rhetoric”2012-04-17T01:53:06Z<p>Jennifer Robichaux: </p>
<hr />
<div>=Abstract=<br />
Ohmann is not interested in identifying a new rhetoric, instead he identifies the ways in which new rhetorical theories resemble one another. Ohmann points to five attributes that are common amongst proposed “new rhetorics.” The first commonality is that new rhetoric bridges the gap between rhetor and audience, allowing for “cooperation, mutuality, social harmony” (300). This is in contrast to traditional rhetoric which emphasizes the separation of speaker and audience. The second attribute is modern rhetoric’s pursuit of truth and right. Third, modern rhetoric is not concerned with persuasion, as the modern rhetor must seek self-discovery (which cannot be achieved through deception). Fourth, rhetoric is a “product as a revelation of the writer’s mind and of his moral character.” To modern theorists, rhetoric is a vessel for conveying the speaker’s genuine nature. And last, modern rhetoric creates community comprised of shared ideas, attitudes, modes of perception, though, and feeling--a world view. <br />
<br />
== In Lieu of a New Rhetoric ==<br />
In “In Lieu of a New Rhetoric,” [[Richard Ohmann]] starts by acknowledging the past perceptions of rhetoric as a “mysterious power” and as a “calculated procedure” bond in the similar characteristic of dealing with persuasion (298). He continues by contrasting the views of many of the new rhetoricians like I.A. Richards, Daniel Fogarty, and Richard Weaver--to name a few. He then states his purpose: “suggest one way in which contemporary ideas of rhetoric...resemble each other more than any of them resembles older ideas” (300). This similarity between the contemporary ideas is that they open the term rhetoric to incorporate a broader spectrum of linguistic activity; this is different from the classical view of rhetoric as persuasion. Ohmann outlines these relationships using five aspects: the relationship between the rhetor and the audience in which new rhetoric encompasses a more mutual relationship, rhetoric as a pursuit versus the transmission of truth, candor as a necessary condition of making rhetoric, the attribution of how much a work reflects the author (only in style says new rhetoricians), and rhetoric reflecting the concepts of a world view (of the world, community, group, or an individual). Ohmann continues to discuss rhetoric in terms of teaching freshman-level college students. He states that the current methods of grammarian rules, etc. are not affective in the classroom. Rather, he proposes a “four-part framework” for teaching freshman. First, the students must understand “the relationship between a piece of writing and its content.Then, they should be taught the “relationship between a piece of writing and its author” and its relationship with the audience (304). And, final idea they should learn is that of the world views previously discussed by Ohmann.<br />
<br />
== Possible Implications == <br />
In Ohmann, I thought the section about teaching English at the college level to adhere to his ideas about Modern Rhetoric were good. I appreciated how he started off by acknowledging that many college freshman don’t have enough of a grasp on the English language to even begin thinking about rhetoric, and I appreciated that he made an attempt to propose a structured curriculum to follow. However, I disagree with the idea that, if professors explain to their freshmen the importance of mastering the English language so they can participate in a “linguistic community,” the students will have a profound respect for the language. I think that’s a wonderful theory (and I wish it would happen that way); however, I feel like many freshmen who don’t know even basic grammar won’t care about the significance of language in our culture. If they didn’t care enough in high school to learn grammar, they probably won’t care about this either. (I do concede that not all students who don’t know grammar are slackers or don’t care, but I still think his idea is better in theory. What typical college freshmen do you know who care about becoming a successful part of a linguistic community?)<br />
<br />
I do agree with his idea that students should be made aware of all the syntactic patterns they have at their disposal. It’s always a relief to remember that there is no one way to write a sentence -- it takes some of the pressure off being “perfect” and allows me to write as an expression of myself, my ideas, and my beliefs (not some else’s).</div>Jennifer Robichauxhttps://rhetorclick.com/wiki/DePew,_Kevin_Eric_%E2%80%9CThrough_the_Eyes_of_Researchers,_Rhetors,_and_Audiences%E2%80%9DDePew, Kevin Eric “Through the Eyes of Researchers, Rhetors, and Audiences”2012-04-17T01:51:14Z<p>Jennifer Robichaux: </p>
<hr />
<div>==Abstract==<br />
In his article, Kevin Eric DePew discussed the ways in which the digital writing situation can be and is researched. He primarily discusses two different methods: Triangulation and Text Analysis. He describes triangulation to be a “‘complex process of playing each method off against the other,’” which he believes “‘maximizes the validity of the field efforts’” (53). DePew discusses four different instances of digital writing research and the methods used to conduct the research. Within each section, DePew discusses how effective each method was and what it lacked. DePew believes, “By adopting these triangulation methods, the researcher connects with those who are actually using the writing technologies” (66). By simply using a text analysis method, the researcher incorporates his or her own response to the text which may be completely different from the users. He states, “Textual analysis strategies prove to be problematic in that they eliminate or de-emphasize the human feature of digital writing” (67).<br />
<br />
=Through the Eyes of Researchers, Rhetors, and Audiences=<br />
DePew begins by describing how digital research has previously been approached: the focus was mainly on the composition programs used by scholars to facilitate writing. Now, however, research is focused on the Internet, where writing is generated and communication facilitated. DePew argues that these new technologies signify a need for a shift in how we understand and study the rhetorical situation. Though many researchers have begun to look at how the rhetorical situation is affected by digital writing, the type of research has remained, for the most part, a textual analysis. Instead, researchers should take a broader approach to understanding digital writing--a triangulated approach. The triangular approach focuses on the rhetor, audience, digital text/discourse, and the context; this allows for a better, more comprehensive understanding of the digital writing. DePew supports this need for a triangulated approach by pointing out that all researchers bring with them personal experience, and it is nearly impossible for research to be completely unbiased. Data triangulation (sampling date from multiple sources) attempts to prevent the researchers biases (conscious or otherwise) from tainting the research. Method triangulation is similar in that it employs the use of multiple methods of research so as to avoid what DePew describes as “single-voicedness.”<br />
<br />
=Possible Implications=<br />
DePew’s ideas about digital writing research are extremely important and should be considered for implementation in the classroom. As demonstrated by the research example of McKee, the triangulated approach allows for a deeper understanding of the subject and forces the researchers to go beyond already established rhetorical theory. I think DePew’s values are similar to that of Carl Rogers, in that both individuals are concerned with achieving a comprehensive understanding. DePew is fighting against the research tendency to only conduct research that supports the researcher’s opinion, and Rogers is fighting against the individual’s tendency to ignoring the opposing point of view. I think writing students could greatly benefit from understanding DePew and Rogers’ theories.</div>Jennifer Robichauxhttps://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Style_GuideStyle Guide2012-04-14T18:01:30Z<p>Jennifer Robichaux: /* Glossary */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Purpose of Style Guide==<br />
<br />
This style guide will enable wiki contributors to keep a consistent voice, style, and design when adding or editing content. To make the wiki as effective as possible, it is important for both writing and design to remain consistent and accessible. Refer to the following guidelines for rules on grammar, punctuation, headings, form, and layout. <br />
<br />
== Style Guidelines == <br />
<br />
* When adding a new page, give a brief description (one or two sentences) of what information is found on that page immediately beneath the title. <br />
<br />
* When using Level 2 Headlines, put one line space between the title and the first line entry.<br />
<br />
* For bulleted and numbered lists, put one space between the bullet point and the first word.<br />
<br />
* For bulleted and numbered lists, put one line space between entries.<br />
<br />
* For all headings (titles and level 2 headlines), use up-style. (Example: This Is How It Should Look / This is not how it should look)<br />
<br />
* In the convention of Wikipedia, at the bottom of each page, put "See Also" for links to other pages within the wiki and "External Links" in level 2 headlines for useful links that are not easily integrated into the body of text.<br />
<br />
==Writing Guidelines==<br />
<br />
* Follow the rules of American grammar and spelling.<br />
<br />
* Follow MLA style when using citations<br />
<br />
== Article Summaries ==<br />
<br />
* Should be written in third-person<br />
<br />
* If using quotations, use foot-notes to cite<br />
<br />
* If possible, use hyperlinks to link to an online source<br />
<br />
* Divide the article summary into three sections: Abstract, Summary, and Possible Implications<br />
<br />
* The abstract should provide a succinct summary of the article, no more than 200 words long<br />
<br />
* The article summary should provide a comprehensive overview of the article. If possible, include quotations (with citations). <br />
<br />
* Following the summary, the "Possible Implications" section is a space for a more subjective analysis of the article. While this should still be written in third person, feel free to propose alternative interpretations or links to outside sources that may be related to the article. <br />
<br />
* List article summaries in alphabetical order by author's last name.<br />
<br />
* Title should be the article title (within quotation marks), followed by the author's full name. (Example: "Definition of Man" by Kenneth Burke)<br />
<br />
* Use a bold sub-heading (not a level 2 headline) for "Summary" section.<br />
<br />
* Link to the author's page at the bottom of the entry using the following sentence: For more information, visit: [link to author's page].<br />
<br />
* Include a section for "Possible Implications" after the summary so contributors can share their opinions about the readings. The section heading should look as follows: '''Additional Thoughts''' (Feel free to add your opinions here!)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Glossary ==<br />
<br />
* Bold the word being defined, followed by a colon<br />
<br />
* If using a word/definition from an article, link to the article summary using a parenthetical reference after the definition<br />
<br />
*Example definition-- '''Aesthetics''': study of the mind and emotions in relation to the sense of beauty (see [["The New Rhetoric: A Theory of Practical Reasoning" by Chaïm Perelman]])<br />
<br />
==Outside Resources==<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
== Author Pages ==<br />
<br />
* List authors in alphabetical order by Last Name. For links, write authors' names as Last Name, First Name.<br />
<br />
* Title should be the author's full name (include middle initials, if commonly used).<br />
<br />
* Repeat author's full name to start entry, followed by birth year and death year (if still living, write "present"). <br />
<br />
* Link to Article Summaries by that author under an "Article Summaries" Level 2 Headline.<br />
<br />
* Follow this general format for all Author Pages: summary, biography (including education, early life, family, occupations, awards, etc.), article summaries, additional works/ publications, further readings, references, and external links. Other sections can be added as desired (such as Notable Quotes). <br />
<br />
== Definitions of Rhetoric ==<br />
<br />
* List authors alphabetically by last name. (Example: Burke, Kenneth)<br />
<br />
* Do not use Level 2 Headlines for authors' name -- make the names '''bold'''.<br />
<br />
* Use a bulleted list for definitions beneath author's name.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
* Use a numbered list -- not a bulleted list.<br />
<br />
== Timeline ==<br />
<br />
* List authors by First Name, Last Name.<br />
<br />
* Link authors' names to their corresponding Authors Page.<br />
<br />
* List authors in order by birth date, from earliest to most current.<br />
<br />
==Footnotes==<br />
<br />
*<ref> [http://URL HERE.com] </ref><br />
<br />
*References (footnotes) <references/> <br />
<br />
*External links</div>Jennifer Robichauxhttps://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Style_GuideStyle Guide2012-04-14T18:00:46Z<p>Jennifer Robichaux: </p>
<hr />
<div>==Purpose of Style Guide==<br />
<br />
This style guide will enable wiki contributors to keep a consistent voice, style, and design when adding or editing content. To make the wiki as effective as possible, it is important for both writing and design to remain consistent and accessible. Refer to the following guidelines for rules on grammar, punctuation, headings, form, and layout. <br />
<br />
== Style Guidelines == <br />
<br />
* When adding a new page, give a brief description (one or two sentences) of what information is found on that page immediately beneath the title. <br />
<br />
* When using Level 2 Headlines, put one line space between the title and the first line entry.<br />
<br />
* For bulleted and numbered lists, put one space between the bullet point and the first word.<br />
<br />
* For bulleted and numbered lists, put one line space between entries.<br />
<br />
* For all headings (titles and level 2 headlines), use up-style. (Example: This Is How It Should Look / This is not how it should look)<br />
<br />
* In the convention of Wikipedia, at the bottom of each page, put "See Also" for links to other pages within the wiki and "External Links" in level 2 headlines for useful links that are not easily integrated into the body of text.<br />
<br />
==Writing Guidelines==<br />
<br />
* Follow the rules of American grammar and spelling.<br />
<br />
* Follow MLA style when using citations<br />
<br />
== Article Summaries ==<br />
<br />
* Should be written in third-person<br />
<br />
* If using quotations, use foot-notes to cite<br />
<br />
* If possible, use hyperlinks to link to an online source<br />
<br />
* Divide the article summary into three sections: Abstract, Summary, and Possible Implications<br />
<br />
* The abstract should provide a succinct summary of the article, no more than 200 words long<br />
<br />
* The article summary should provide a comprehensive overview of the article. If possible, include quotations (with citations). <br />
<br />
* Following the summary, the "Possible Implications" section is a space for a more subjective analysis of the article. While this should still be written in third person, feel free to propose alternative interpretations or links to outside sources that may be related to the article. <br />
<br />
* List article summaries in alphabetical order by author's last name.<br />
<br />
* Title should be the article title (within quotation marks), followed by the author's full name. (Example: "Definition of Man" by Kenneth Burke)<br />
<br />
* Use a bold sub-heading (not a level 2 headline) for "Summary" section.<br />
<br />
* Link to the author's page at the bottom of the entry using the following sentence: For more information, visit: [link to author's page].<br />
<br />
* Include a section for "Possible Implications" after the summary so contributors can share their opinions about the readings. The section heading should look as follows: '''Additional Thoughts''' (Feel free to add your opinions here!)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Glossary ==<br />
<br />
* Bold the word being defined, followed by a colon<br />
<br />
* If using a word/definition from an article, link to the article summary using a parenthetical reference after the definition<br />
<br />
*Example definition-- <br />
'''Aesthetics''': study of the mind and emotions in relation to the sense of beauty (see [["The New Rhetoric: A Theory of Practical Reasoning" by Chaïm Perelman]])<br />
<br />
==Outside Resources==<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
== Author Pages ==<br />
<br />
* List authors in alphabetical order by Last Name. For links, write authors' names as Last Name, First Name.<br />
<br />
* Title should be the author's full name (include middle initials, if commonly used).<br />
<br />
* Repeat author's full name to start entry, followed by birth year and death year (if still living, write "present"). <br />
<br />
* Link to Article Summaries by that author under an "Article Summaries" Level 2 Headline.<br />
<br />
* Follow this general format for all Author Pages: summary, biography (including education, early life, family, occupations, awards, etc.), article summaries, additional works/ publications, further readings, references, and external links. Other sections can be added as desired (such as Notable Quotes). <br />
<br />
== Definitions of Rhetoric ==<br />
<br />
* List authors alphabetically by last name. (Example: Burke, Kenneth)<br />
<br />
* Do not use Level 2 Headlines for authors' name -- make the names '''bold'''.<br />
<br />
* Use a bulleted list for definitions beneath author's name.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
* Use a numbered list -- not a bulleted list.<br />
<br />
== Timeline ==<br />
<br />
* List authors by First Name, Last Name.<br />
<br />
* Link authors' names to their corresponding Authors Page.<br />
<br />
* List authors in order by birth date, from earliest to most current.<br />
<br />
==Footnotes==<br />
<br />
*<ref> [http://URL HERE.com] </ref><br />
<br />
*References (footnotes) <references/> <br />
<br />
*External links</div>Jennifer Robichauxhttps://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Style_GuideStyle Guide2012-04-12T17:13:16Z<p>Jennifer Robichaux: </p>
<hr />
<div>==Purpose of Style Guide==<br />
<br />
This style guide will enable wiki contributors to keep a consistent voice, style, and design when adding or editing content. To make the wiki as effective as possible, it is important for both writing and design to remain consistent and accessible. Refer to the following guidelines for rules on grammar, punctuation, headings, form, and layout. <br />
<br />
== Style Guidelines == <br />
<br />
* When adding a new page, give a brief description (one or two sentences) of what information is found on that page immediately beneath the title. <br />
<br />
* When using Level 2 Headlines, put one line space between the title and the first line entry.<br />
<br />
* For bulleted and numbered lists, put one space between the bullet point and the first word.<br />
<br />
* For bulleted and numbered lists, put one line space between entries.<br />
<br />
* For all headings (titles and level 2 headlines), use up-style. (Example: This Is How It Should Look / This is not how it should look)<br />
<br />
* In the convention of Wikipedia, at the bottom of each page, put "See Also" for links to other pages within the wiki and "External Links" in level 2 headlines for useful links that are not easily integrated into the body of text.<br />
<br />
==Writing Guidelines==<br />
<br />
* Follow the rules of American grammar and spelling.<br />
<br />
* Follow MLA style when using citations<br />
<br />
== Article Summaries ==<br />
<br />
* Should be written in third-person<br />
<br />
* If using quotations, use foot-notes to cite<br />
<br />
* If possible, use hyperlinks to link to an online source<br />
<br />
* Divide the article summary into three sections: Abstract, Summary, and Possible Implications<br />
<br />
* The abstract should provide a succinct summary of the article, no more than 200 words long<br />
<br />
* The article summary should provide a comprehensive overview of the article. If possible, include quotations (with citations). <br />
<br />
* Following the summary, the "Possible Implications" section is a space for a more subjective analysis of the article. While this should still be written in third person, feel free to propose alternative interpretations or links to outside sources that may be related to the article. <br />
<br />
* List article summaries in alphabetical order by author's last name.<br />
<br />
* Title should be the article title (within quotation marks), followed by the author's full name. (Example: "Definition of Man" by Kenneth Burke)<br />
<br />
* Use a bold sub-heading (not a level 2 headline) for "Summary" section.<br />
<br />
* Link to the author's page at the bottom of the entry using the following sentence: For more information, visit: [link to author's page].<br />
<br />
* Include a section for "Possible Implications" after the summary so contributors can share their opinions about the readings. The section heading should look as follows: '''Additional Thoughts''' (Feel free to add your opinions here!)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Glossary ==<br />
<br />
* At the end of each definition, please put (see: "Name of Article") Example: (see [["Definition of Man" by Kenneth Burke]])<br />
<br />
== Author Pages ==<br />
<br />
* List authors in alphabetical order by Last Name. For links, write authors' names as Last Name, First Name.<br />
<br />
* Title should be the author's full name (include middle initials, if commonly used).<br />
<br />
* Repeat author's full name to start entry, followed by birth year and death year (if still living, write "present"). <br />
<br />
* Link to Article Summaries by that author under an "Article Summaries" Level 2 Headline.<br />
<br />
* Follow this general format for all Author Pages: summary, biography (including education, early life, family, occupations, awards, etc.), article summaries, additional works/ publications, further readings, references, and external links. Other sections can be added as desired (such as Notable Quotes). <br />
<br />
== Definitions of Rhetoric ==<br />
<br />
* List authors alphabetically by last name. (Example: Burke, Kenneth)<br />
<br />
* Do not use Level 2 Headlines for authors' name -- make the names '''bold'''.<br />
<br />
* Use a bulleted list for definitions beneath author's name.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
* Use a numbered list -- not a bulleted list.<br />
<br />
== Timeline ==<br />
<br />
* List authors by First Name, Last Name.<br />
<br />
* Link authors' names to their corresponding Authors Page.<br />
<br />
* List authors in order by birth date, from earliest to most current.<br />
<br />
==Footnotes==<br />
<br />
*<ref> [http://URL HERE.com] </ref><br />
<br />
*References (footnotes) <references/> <br />
<br />
*External links</div>Jennifer Robichauxhttps://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Style_GuideStyle Guide2012-04-12T17:06:17Z<p>Jennifer Robichaux: </p>
<hr />
<div>==Purpose of Style Guide==<br />
<br />
This style guide will enable wiki contributors to keep a consistent voice, style, and design when adding or editing content. To make the wiki as effective as possible, it is important for both writing and design to remain consistent and accessible. Refer to the following guidelines for rules on grammar, punctuation, headings, form, and layout. <br />
<br />
== Style Guidelines == <br />
<br />
* When adding a new page, give a brief description (one or two sentences) of what information is found on that page immediately beneath the title. <br />
<br />
* When using Level 2 Headlines, put one line space between the title and the first line entry.<br />
<br />
* For bulleted and numbered lists, put one space between the bullet point and the first word.<br />
<br />
* For bulleted and numbered lists, put one line space between entries.<br />
<br />
* For all headings (titles and level 2 headlines), use up-style. (Example: This Is How It Should Look / This is not how it should look)<br />
<br />
* In the convention of Wikipedia, at the bottom of each page, put "See Also" for links to other pages within the wiki and "External Links" in level 2 headlines for useful links that are not easily integrated into the body of text.<br />
<br />
==Writing Guidelines==<br />
<br />
* Follow the rules of American grammar and spelling.<br />
<br />
* Follow MLA style when using citations<br />
<br />
== Article Summaries ==<br />
<br />
* Divide the article summary into three sections: Abstract, Summary, and Possible Implications<br />
<br />
* The abstract should provide a succinct summary of the article, no more than 200 words long<br />
<br />
* The article summary should provide a comprehensive overview of the article with <br />
<br />
* List article summaries in alphabetical order by author's last name.<br />
<br />
* Title should be the article title (within quotation marks), followed by the author's full name. (Example: "Definition of Man" by Kenneth Burke)<br />
<br />
* Use a bold sub-heading (not a level 2 headline) for "Summary" section.<br />
<br />
* Link to the author's page at the bottom of the entry using the following sentence: For more information, visit: [link to author's page].<br />
<br />
* Include a section for "Possible Implications" after the summary so contributors can share their opinions about the readings. The section heading should look as follows: '''Additional Thoughts''' (Feel free to add your opinions here!)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Glossary ==<br />
<br />
* At the end of each definition, please put (see: "Name of Article") Example: (see [["Definition of Man" by Kenneth Burke]])<br />
<br />
== Author Pages ==<br />
<br />
* List authors in alphabetical order by Last Name. For links, write authors' names as Last Name, First Name.<br />
<br />
* Title should be the author's full name (include middle initials, if commonly used).<br />
<br />
* Repeat author's full name to start entry, followed by birth year and death year (if still living, write "present"). <br />
<br />
* Link to Article Summaries by that author under an "Article Summaries" Level 2 Headline.<br />
<br />
* Follow this general format for all Author Pages: summary, biography (including education, early life, family, occupations, awards, etc.), article summaries, additional works/ publications, further readings, references, and external links. Other sections can be added as desired (such as Notable Quotes). <br />
<br />
== Definitions of Rhetoric ==<br />
<br />
* List authors alphabetically by last name. (Example: Burke, Kenneth)<br />
<br />
* Do not use Level 2 Headlines for authors' name -- make the names '''bold'''.<br />
<br />
* Use a bulleted list for definitions beneath author's name.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
* Use a numbered list -- not a bulleted list.<br />
<br />
== Timeline ==<br />
<br />
* List authors by First Name, Last Name.<br />
<br />
* Link authors' names to their corresponding Authors Page.<br />
<br />
* List authors in order by birth date, from earliest to most current.<br />
<br />
==Footnotes==<br />
<br />
*<ref> [http://URL HERE.com] </ref><br />
<br />
*References (footnotes) <references/> <br />
<br />
*External links</div>Jennifer Robichauxhttps://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Style_GuideStyle Guide2012-04-12T16:48:02Z<p>Jennifer Robichaux: </p>
<hr />
<div>==Purpose of Style Guide==<br />
<br />
This style guide will enable wiki contributors to keep a consistent voice, style, and design when adding or editing content. To make the wiki as effective as possible, it is important for both writing and design to remain consistent and accessible. Refer to the following guidelines for rules on grammar, punctuation, headings, form, and layout. <br />
<br />
==RhetorClick Principles==<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
== Style Guidelines == <br />
<br />
* When adding a new page, give a brief description (one or two sentences) of what information is found on that page immediately beneath the title. <br />
<br />
* When using Level 2 Headlines, put one line space between the title and the first line entry.<br />
<br />
* For bulleted and numbered lists, put one space between the bullet point and the first word.<br />
<br />
* For bulleted and numbered lists, put one line space between entries.<br />
<br />
* For all headings (titles and level 2 headlines), use up-style. (Example: This Is How It Should Look / This is not how it should look)<br />
<br />
* In the convention of Wikipedia, at the bottom of each page, put "See Also" for links to other pages within the wiki and "External Links" in level 2 headlines for useful links that are not easily integrated into the body of text.<br />
<br />
==Writing Guidelines==<br />
<br />
* Follow the rules of American grammar and spelling.<br />
<br />
* Follow MLA style when using citations<br />
<br />
== Article Summaries ==<br />
<br />
* List article summaries in alphabetical order by author's last name.<br />
<br />
* Title should be the article title (within quotation marks), followed by the author's full name. (Example: "Definition of Man" by Kenneth Burke)<br />
<br />
* Use a bold sub-heading (not a level 2 headline) for "Summary" section.<br />
<br />
* Link to the author's page at the bottom of the entry using the following sentence: For more information, visit: [link to author's page].<br />
<br />
* Include a section for "Possible Implications" after the summary so contributors can share their opinions about the readings. The section heading should look as follows: '''Additional Thoughts''' (Feel free to add your opinions here!)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Glossary ==<br />
<br />
* At the end of each definition, please put (see: "Name of Article") Example: (see [["Definition of Man" by Kenneth Burke]])<br />
<br />
== Author Pages ==<br />
<br />
* List authors in alphabetical order by Last Name. For links, write authors' names as Last Name, First Name.<br />
<br />
* Title should be the author's full name (include middle initials, if commonly used).<br />
<br />
* Repeat author's full name to start entry, followed by birth year and death year (if still living, write "present"). <br />
<br />
* Link to Article Summaries by that author under an "Article Summaries" Level 2 Headline.<br />
<br />
* Follow this general format for all Author Pages: summary, biography (including education, early life, family, occupations, awards, etc.), article summaries, additional works/ publications, further readings, references, and external links. Other sections can be added as desired (such as Notable Quotes). <br />
<br />
== Definitions of Rhetoric ==<br />
<br />
* List authors alphabetically by last name. (Example: Burke, Kenneth)<br />
<br />
* Do not use Level 2 Headlines for authors' name -- make the names '''bold'''.<br />
<br />
* Use a bulleted list for definitions beneath author's name.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
* Use a numbered list -- not a bulleted list.<br />
<br />
== Timeline ==<br />
<br />
* List authors by First Name, Last Name.<br />
<br />
* Link authors' names to their corresponding Authors Page.<br />
<br />
* List authors in order by birth date, from earliest to most current.</div>Jennifer Robichauxhttps://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Contribution_to_Wiki,_Spring_2012Contribution to Wiki, Spring 20122012-04-04T21:30:07Z<p>Jennifer Robichaux: </p>
<hr />
<div>Please list your name and tentative ideas for wiki contributions: <br />
<br />
Ryan- style guide, graduate resources<br><br />
Jennifer- style guide, content<br></div>Jennifer Robichauxhttps://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Contribution_to_Wiki,_Spring_2012Contribution to Wiki, Spring 20122012-04-04T21:29:48Z<p>Jennifer Robichaux: Created page with "Please list your name and tentative ideas for wiki contributions: Ryan- style guide, graduate resources Jennifer- style guide, content"</p>
<hr />
<div>Please list your name and tentative ideas for wiki contributions: <br />
<br />
Ryan- style guide, graduate resources<br />
Jennifer- style guide, content</div>Jennifer Robichauxhttps://rhetorclick.com/wiki/DirectoryDirectory2012-04-04T21:26:17Z<p>Jennifer Robichaux: </p>
<hr />
<div>This page contains links to the major sections of the site. Please add links to new sections as you create them.<br />
* [[Mission Statement]]<br />
* [[Editing Guidelines]]<br />
* [[Definitions of Rhetoric]]<br />
* [[Article Summaries]]<br />
* [[Authors]]<br />
* [[Geographical Map of Authors]]<br />
* [[Theories and Movements]]<br />
* [[Timeline]]<br />
* [[Glossary]]<br />
* [[Style Sheet]]<br />
* [[Contribution to Wiki, Spring 2012]]</div>Jennifer Robichaux