I am going to attempt to compare Wikipedia to Xanadu but would appreciate your help because I found the readings hard to get through.

In both Xanadu and Wikipedia, the user can edit and create documents. However, I think the user has more control over Wikipedia than Xanadu. Xanadu tracks changes made to text so people can understand where the current line of thought originated. All versions of a document are preserved in Xanadu. This reminds me of Wikipedia’s history page. On Wikipedia’s history page, you can click on a date when a change was made to bring up the old version. In both Wikipedia and Xanadu, you can compare previous revisions to a document side by side. Documents in Xanadu can be annotated. This makes me think of Wikipedia’s discussion page where users can discuss revisions.

Wikipedia and Xanadu both use hypertext to provide links to an array of content within a closed system but Wikipedia often has links that don’t work. One of Xanadu’s goals was to have non-breaking links to permanently stored documents which can’t be removed from the system. I think the nature of Xanadu’s links is different than what the web currently allows. Nelson (1999) talks about having thousands of overlapping links on the same body of content called transclusions. Therefore, links are infinite instead of today’s one way connection.

 I often see articles in Wikipedia without proper references. Xanadu proposes a system of copyright called transcopyright (Nelson, 1997 as cited by Nelson, 1999) where the “quote is connected to the original work so that readers can locate the context from which an excerpt was drawn” (Denning, 1998 as cited by Nelson, 1999). This system also includes giving credit and possibly monetary compensation to the original author of works included in any derivatives such as mash-ups.

Here is a video of Ted Nelson talking about the difference between the Internet and Xanadu.

 Nelson, Theodore. (1999). “Xanalogical structure, needed now more than ever: Parallel documents, deep links to content, deep versioning and deep re-use.” Available: http://www.cs.brown.edu/memex/ACM_HypertextTestbed/papers/60.html

I often question if word processing is used adequately in schools. In my own class, I teach typing skills here and there but mainly use our computer time for more exciting applications. When working on activities other than typing, I don’t check to see if my students are using the “pecking” method or proper typing technique. Am I doing my students a disservice by not demanding they use proper technique at all times? In B.C., there is no separate elementary curriculum for learning with technology so I don’t know if students are ever expected to perfect their typing form. I imagine that bad habits would be too hard to change by the time they take typing classes in high school. Maybe typing should be regarded like writing as students are expected to perfect letter formation in kindergarten and grade one.

I don’t ask my students to type out good copies of projects or assignments because it would take forever due to their lack of keyboard and word processing knowledge. I see students in the upper elementary grades typing their assignments. I wonder if these students simply copy their handwritten good copy to the computer instead of using the advantages of the word processor? Bolton (2001) lists some of these advantages as replacing words (maybe with the thesaurus option) and reorganizing ideas by cutting and pasting. Editing with a word processor is much easier than erasing and rewriting. Should we be using a word processor for typing rough copies at all times?

Using a word processor regularly for stories and essays would be many primary teacher’s worst nightmare. However, maybe it wouldn’t be so bad if we made a big effort to teach students how to use it? As it stands now, once a week in the computer lab would not be enough to help my young students make the transition.

Bolter, J.D. (2001). Writing Space: Computers, hypertext, and the remediation of print. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

What are the benefits and drawbacks of the scroll as a technology for writing? Consider storage, transportation of documents, aesthetics, suitability for different structures of argument, and ease of use for both readers and writers

Writing was not considered practical or economical at the time of the scroll. Writing often required many rolls and was only done on one side of the scroll. Grout (2002) said that physical limitations of the scroll “tended to define the divisions of literature” because one piece of work often required many rolls. The need to constantly wind and unwind the scroll took a lot of time compared to turning the pages of a codex. This action also caused abrasion (Grout, 2002). It was difficult to find information on the scroll because there was no index and the titulus (title) would tend to fall off. Handwriting at the time of the scroll was very decorative like calligraphy (Ong, 2002). Writing took a long period of time which was sometimes only able to be interpreted by the author (Ong, 2002). This is an extreme contrast to print culture where page layout was well structured and legible, making silent reading easier (Ong, 2002).

Reading was a social activity with the scroll. It was embedded in an oral culture where mnemonics, aggregation, and epithets were transferred to writing. Therefore, written grammar was still closely tied to the spoken word even though it did revolutionize communication. (Bolter, 2001). “Writing on papyrus remediated oral communication by involving the eye as well as the ear and so giving the words a different claim to reality” (Bolter, 2001, p. 23). Because reading took place in public, the written word was more up for debate than in print, for example, which was thought of to be finalized (Ong, 2002). Scroll writing was done by experts who were educated in working with materials like rags, ink and papyrus. Therefore, literacy was not common amongst the masses.

Bolter, J. (2001). Writing space. New York: Routledge.

Grout, J. (Ed.). (2002). Scroll and codex. In Encyclopaedia Romana. Retrieved from: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/notaepage.html

Ong, Walter. (2002.) Orality and literacy. New York: Routledge.