Paragraph Revision

Original

The case could be made that these two prominent forms of collective intelligence are categorizable as one definition, or that the term deserves no special attention, but such a statement shows blindness to a great array of differences. Each author tends to lean toward one form of the word, not addressing the fact that it has multiple meanings. Collective intelligence is a vast term, that can extend beyond even the two aforementioned forms. In defense of the controversial iPod experiment, Davidson states, “A revolution in the democratization of knowledge is not frivolous, especially considering that, once customized, an individual mobile device is actually an inexpensive computer” (Davidson 54). She is supporting the idea for a new kind of intelligence. In her case, this relates more directly to the idea of crowdsourcing, but it carries with it a broader application. Her statement that it is not frivolous shows the need for attention to be paid to the concept of collective intelligence, and to pay attention to it, one must recognize the duality associated with it. Johnson addresses much duality in his piece, as well. For example, he does this in regards to complexity. He writes, “There is, first, the more conventional sense of complexity as sensory overload… But complexity is not solely a matter of sensory overload. There is also the sense of complexity as a self-organizing system” (Johnson 199). Making note of this difference is essential to Johnson’s essay. Beyond this point he chooses to focus on solely the latter definition of complexity. Had he chosen to not differentiate between the two definitions, his paper would be hard to follow and ineffective. As a result, the same can be said for the two definitions of collective intelligence. It is crucial to recognize that each meaning is distinct and different.

Revised

The argument could be made that these two definitions of collective intelligence are categorizable as one definition, or that the term deserves no special attention, but such a statement shows blindness to a great array of differences. It is true that each author tends to lean toward one form of collective intelligence, not addressing the fact that it has multiple meanings. However, the aforementioned explanations should have demonstrated the falsehood of such a statement. Davidson makes the case for attention to be paid to collective intelligence. In defense of the controversial iPod experiment, she states, “A revolution in the democratization of knowledge is not frivolous, especially considering that, once customized, an individual mobile device is actually an inexpensive computer” (Davidson 54). Through the example of mobile devices, Davidson’s statement is supporting the concept of a new kind of intelligence. In her case, this relates more directly to the idea of crowdsourcing, but it carries with it a broader application, which can relate to the topic as a whole. Her statement that it is not frivolous shows the need for attention to be paid to the concept of collective intelligence, and to pay attention to it, one must recognize the duality associated with it. Johnson addresses this kind of duality in his piece. For example, in regards to complexity, he writes, “There is, first, the more conventional sense of complexity as sensory overload… But complexity is not solely a matter of sensory overload. There is also the sense of complexity as a self-organizing system” (Johnson 199). Making note of this difference is essential to Johnson’s essay, considering that following this statement, he chooses to focus on solely the latter definition of complexity. Had he chosen to not differentiate between the two definitions, his paper would be hard to follow and ineffective. As a result, the same can be said for the two definitions of collective intelligence. Each meaning is incredibly distinct, so without differentiation, their uses can become unclear.

Analysis

My reviewers had suggested that my quotes in this paragraph seemed a little bit out of place. Rather than completely replace the quotes, I tried to do a better job of blending them into the paragraph to make the paragraph flow more smoothly. Because my thesis deals with a rather technical aspect of the definition, having a strong counterargument in my essay serves to strengthen the relevance of my thesis. With these edits, I have made my counterargument stronger, and thus strengthened my own argument.

Despite natural inclination of humanity to follow the same path when guided by a leader, Davidson argues that allowing large groups of people to tackle problems independently, a collection of individual solutions will come through, many of which could not be foreseen. Her example is the ‘iPod experiment’ held at Duke where students had to produce a valid reason for the technology to be used in their class so they could have access to a free iPod. Those students helped create a new media, the podcast, where lectures can be shared online. This lead to the development of iTunes U. She is saying that the individual efforts of the students are what lead to the shift in technology and education. However, where is the individuality in the group collaboration. The individual efforts of the developers in Manchester lead to the famous modern city, with shopping districts and housing areas. Just because the efforts seem isolated do not mean that the product is as well. The combined ideas and efforts of the students is where the crowdsourcing model shines.

Despite natural inclination of humanity to follow the same path when guided by a leader, Davidson argues that allowing large groups of people to tackle problems independently, a collection of individual solutions will come through, many of which could not be foreseen. Her example is the ‘iPod experiment’ held at Duke, where students had to produce a valid reason for the technology to be used in their class so they could have access to a free iPod. Those students helped create a new media, the podcast, where lectures can be shared online. She is saying that the individual efforts of the students are what lead to the shift in technology and education. However, there is the collectiveness in the group collaboration, “the iPod could be used for collective learning,” (Davidson 52). The individual learning process was not the focus of the experiment for her. Even Davidson wanted to see how technology effected the collective system of college students. She knew that like the individual efforts of the developers in Manchester lead to the famous modern city, with shopping districts and housing areas. Just because the efforts seem isolated do not mean that the product is as well. The combined ideas and efforts of the students is where the crowdsourcing model shines. It is one thing for individuals to come up with ideas; it is another for the group as a whole to accept and use them. If a students had not continued to use the ideas presented on how to use the iPod, then the experiment was a failure. Yet Davidson insisted that experiment succeeded, so that means ideas were accepted into the main thinking of the group.

Max said that I needed to have a quote and relate my idea back to the thesis better. So I refocused the paragraph. I found a quote which enforced the belief I could not express earlier without evidence. Davidson does believe that the individuality of her students is what defines the crowdsourcing, but even she must admit that this experiment is more about than the individual ideas. It is one thing for individuals to come up with ideas; it is another for the group as a whole to accept and use them. I do want to expand more on the idea, and incorporate some more ideas from Johnson, but it will take more than one paragraph to express them all through this line of thinking. This paragraph relates back to my thesis by explaining how Davidson’s argument can benefit my own. My revision reinforces that goal better.

Peer Review Paragraph

Thomas Jefferson recognized the importance of developing pre existing ideas and, therefore, had a more constructive view of patents and copyright, “he [Jefferson] favored just enough incentive to create, nothing more, and thereafter allowing ideas to flow freely” (Lethem 216). Jefferson recognized that restricting people's access to an item discourages innovation because in the end no two people will see the item the same, and thereby everyone’s vision for the object is different. Jefferson’s vision was brought to life when the students at Duke began experimenting with Apple’s iPod. Apple earned their money from the iPod but also let these young future-thinking minds have free reign to experiment with the device, which lead to crowdsourced applications for it in the educational system. In fact, as Davidson says, “Working together, and often alongside their profs, they came up with far more learning apps for their iPod than anyone - even at Apple - had dreamed possible”(Davison 52), showing that collectively the student body was more intelligent, or at least intelligent in a different way, than the R&D team at a fortune 500 company. Letting anybody create an app, as Apple does, only makes their own products more desirable because it adds more features, all the while encouraging everyone to get involved in innovation.

Clearly, throughout history it has been encouraged and common for people to grab others ideas and build on them as long as something extra was brought to the table. The renaissance was a reincarnation of ancient Greek and Roman ideas and culture; the industrial revolution in America began because British ideas were ‘stolen’ and brought across the Atlantic. Thomas Jefferson recognized the importance of developing pre-existing ideas and, therefore, had a more constructive view of patents and copyright, “he [Jefferson] favored just enough incentive to create, nothing more, and thereafter allowing ideas to flow freely” (Lethem 216). Jefferson recognized that restricting people's access to an item discourages innovation because in the end no two people will see the item the same, and thereby the creative possibilities for the object are astronomical.

Jefferson’s vision was brought to life when the students at Duke began experimenting with Apple’s iPod. Apple earned their money from the iPod but also let these young future-thinking minds have free reign to experiment with the device, which lead to crowdsourced educational applications, letting Apple enter a whole new market - one that they probably had not envisioned. In fact, as Davidson says, “Working together, and often alongside their profs, they came up with far more learning apps for their iPod than anyone - even at Apple - had dreamed possible” (Davidson 52), showing that collectively the student body was more creative, or at least creative in a different way, than the R&D team at a Fortune 500 company. The students made a device designed for and used to listen to music into a learning tool without a clear objective, demonstrating that letting anybody create an app, as Apple does, only makes their own products more desirable because it adds more features, all the while encouraging everyone to get involved in innovation.

My peer reviewer commented on how my paragraphs were all about a page each so I split this paragraph in to two at a suitable place that separates two distinct points, which in turn makes it easier to convey my ideas. It was also said that I needed more analysis so separating it into two makes the analysis easier. I added more build up to the first quote and analysis after it. In addition, I changed the wording of a couple of sentences and switched out some words to be more exact. This all works towards my thesis by making the argument I'm making clearer, easier to compartmentalize and more exact.

Paragraph Revision

Original:
Collaboration offers people the opportunity to learn and experience things they have possibly never been exposed to before. Plagiarism is collaboration. Lethem quotes Thomas Jefferson on his stance on plagiarism, saying, “‘He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me’” (Lethem 218). While plagiarism is often used for nefarious purposes, it can also be used for good. When someone gets an idea from someone else is learning. They are being exposed to ideas and thoughts that they may have never been able to think of on their own, and can use this to teach themselves and others. Plagiarism leads to collective learning, as ideas are being shared and used for new purposes. The individual agency behind the collective learning is evident, as it is the individual who must take this knowledge and use his or her own mind to find a use for it. Lethem moves on to analyze Walt Disney and the astonishing amount of his works that were based off of the ideas of others. Disney committed an act of imperial plagiarism, which is “the enclosure of commonwealth culture for the benefit of a sole or corporate owner . . .the free use of Third World or “primitive” artworks and styles by more privileged (and better paid) artists” (Lethem 220). While still a collaboration, this collective learning emphasizes the benefit of the individual. To the outside world, it appears that these stories were Disney’s own ideas, and that he was creating them to share with the world and make others happy; however, it is clear that Disney benefitted more than the general public.

Revised:
Collaboration offers people the opportunity to learn and experience things they have possibly never been exposed to before. Plagiarism is collaboration. Ideas are being passed around from person to person, teaching the recipient something they may have never discovered on their own. Lethem quotes Thomas Jefferson on his stance on plagiarism, saying, “‘He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me’” (Lethem 218). While plagiarism is often used for nefarious purposes, it can also be used for good. When someone gets an idea from someone else, that person is learning. They are being exposed to ideas and thoughts that they themselves may have never been able to think of, and can use this to learn and teach others. Plagiarism leads to collective learning, as ideas are being shared and used for new purposes. An idea from one author can be used by another to create a whole new work. The individual agency behind the collective learning is evident, as it is the individual who must take this knowledge and use his or her own mind to find a use for it. Following his discussion of Jefferson's ideas, Lethem moves on to analyze Walt Disney. Many of Disney's works were based off of the ideas of others. Disney committed an act of imperial plagiarism, which is “the enclosure of commonwealth culture for the benefit of a sole or corporate owner . . .the free use of Third World or “primitive” artworks and styles by more privileged (and better paid) artists” (Lethem 220). While still a collaboration, this collective learning emphasizes the benefit of the individual. To the outside world, it appears that these stories were Disney’s own ideas, and that he was creating them to share with the world and make others happy; however, it is clear that Disney benefitted more than the general public. In this collaboration, Disney was the main beneficiary. The original minds behind the ideas do not receive the recognition that Disney did. Titles like "The Little Mermaid," "Snow White," or "Cinderella," are nearly universally associated with Disney. When people hear these stories, they instantly think of Disney and his famous animations. Disney would not be as famous as he is today without his collaborations, yet the original authors are not nearly as recognizable as Disney. When looking at people like Disney, the individual aspect of collaboration becomes clear. While Disney collaborated with other authors to create his stories, he was only focused on himself and his success. Typically, collaboration insinuates that multiple people worked on a piece and all deserve equal credit. In Disney's case, however, collaboration resulted in Disney alone receiving nearly all the credit. Without collaboration, Disney may have never become such a famous storyteller, and, more importantly, most of the population may have never known of these stories.

Response to Reviewer's Comments:
My reviewer commented that my thesis was too specific in that I argued more than what my thesis stated I would. It had too narrow of a focus. My thesis only talks about how within collaboration, individuals are making their own decisions that contribute to the larger system as a whole. My paper, however, also discusses how individuals can use collaboration to learn and offer profound new ideas. Also, in the paragraphs above, my reviewer mentioned that I needed to further explain Disney's place and how he benefitted as an individual through collective learning. My revisions connect to my thesis because I edited my thesis to include the other aspects of my argument, and the above paragraph supports one of these aspects.

RD 2 Paragraph Revision

Original
By giving original works new purpose, one can find his distinct role in collaboration. Lethem introduces the idea that “...second comers might do a much better job than the originator with the original idea” (Lethem 217). When a creator puts an idea into the world for the first time, his mind predominantly views it in one specific light, or for one specific purpose, giving it a miniscule outreach and impact in comparison to its potential. However, when another creator, or creators, can take that idea and add his own perspective to it, amazing things can occur and the product can advance itself beyond the originator’s intentions. For example, at Duke University, students were able to repurpose the iPod, a device designed for music, to serve people academically (Davidson). Students could listen to Shakespeare, Calculus lectures, and comedic podcasts without leaving their own earbuds, not only in Durham, North Carolina, but across the world because of their innovations. Davidson enforces, “This was a conceptual breakthrough: that a commercial product might also be susceptible to consumer customization....to a product with a far more fixed, finite identity” (Davidson 53). By creating new uses for the iPod, students were able to add longevity to a product that could have died out much more quickly, therefore advancing Steve Job’s vision by adding their own individual spin, still without compromising the original idea. Repurposing, additionally, can go beyond accelerating a concept, and instead truly transform it into something unrecognizable, really establishing the new collaborator’s unique thought process. For instance, when Lethem receives his first novel as a gift from his friend, instead of a traditional paperback, as an intricate, modern art piece (Lethem 219). The artist interpreted Lethem’s work as something completely different and published it, not as a way to steal or infringe on Lethem’s intellectual property, but as a medium to express his own ideas. Through that collaboration, Lethem’s work could be expanded to art appreciators and modernists, as opposed to only those who enter a library or bookstore, thus fulfilling more of the object’s potential. These situations perfectly exemplify the following conclusion by Thomas Jefferson: “He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction to himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.’” (Lethem 218). Through both examples of repurposing, one can see the reflection of the successor’s individuality in the revitalized purpose and more widespread audience of users, appreciators, and understanders.
Revised
By giving original works new purpose, one can find his distinct role in collaboration. Lethem introduces the idea that “...second comers might do a much better job than the originator with the original idea” (Lethem 217). When a creator puts an idea into the world for the first time, his mind predominantly views it in one specific light, or for one specific purpose, giving it a miniscule outreach and impact in comparison to its potential. However, when another creator, or creators, can take that idea and add his own perspective to it, amazing things can occur and the product can advance itself beyond the originator’s intentions. For example, at Duke University, students were able to repurpose the iPod, a device designed for music, to serve people academically (Davidson). Davidson enforces, “This was a conceptual breakthrough: that a commercial product might also be susceptible to consumer customization....to a product with a far more fixed, finite identity” (Davidson 53). By creating new uses for the iPod, students were able to add longevity to a product that could have died out much more quickly, therefore advancing Steve Job’s vision by adding their own individual spin, still without compromising the original idea. Repurposing, additionally, can go beyond accelerating a concept, and instead truly transform it into something unrecognizable, really establishing the new collaborator’s unique thought process. For instance, when Lethem receives his first novel as a gift from his friend, instead of a traditional paperback, as an intricate, modern art piece (Lethem 219). The artist interpreted Lethem’s work as something completely different and published it, not as a way to steal or infringe on Lethem’s intellectual property, but as a medium to express his own ideas. Through that collaboration, Lethem’s work could be expanded to art appreciators and modernists, as opposed to only those who enter a library or bookstore, thus fulfilling more of the object’s potential. These situations perfectly exemplify the following conclusion by Thomas Jefferson: “He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction to himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.’” (Lethem 218). The students were able to take from Jobs' idea and illuminate it, as the artist did with Lethem's novel, still allowing those original two lights to shine just as brightly as before on their own. Through both examples of repurposing, one can see the reflection of the successor’s individuality in the revitalized purpose and more widespread audience of users, appreciators, and understanders.
Analysis
One of my peers commented that the original version of this paragraph contained too much summary, so in the revision I tried to cut down on that. By cutting down on retelling of the authors' ideas and stories, my own thoughts can take center stage, thus allowing my thesis to be more prominent. I also elaborated on Jefferson's quote to establish its purpose in the paragraph more clear. While my peers did not have too many negative critiques on my essay, their feedback was still greatly appreciated and helpful in making my paper the best it can be.

Peer Review Paragraph

Original Paragraph

In large cooperative systems, an individual’s input is not important in the grand scheme of the collective intelligence. As one passively contributes to the collective intelligence, “there is not a rag of originality about [his ideas] anywhere except the little discoloration they get from his mental and moral caliber and his temperament, and which is revealed in characteristics of phrasing” (225). As one plagiarizes in an attempt to add to the collective intelligence, hardly anything is added. In this way, it is difficult to actively contribute something substantial. Johnson describes this idea, characteristic of organized systems, through the example of Manchester, a city which has “a personality that self-organizes out of millions of individual decisions, a global order built out of local interactions,” (Johnson 199). In such a city, individual decisions do not have significant impact. The collective intelligence is instead derived from the contribution of all individuals involved. The nature of humanity and the potential of knowledge necessitate that individuals have minimal impact on the collective intelligence. On the other hand, crowdsourcing is a much smaller scale cooperative system in which individuals contribute significantly to a solution. For example, creative med students “came up with a way to put a stethoscope in one ear, using very simple signal-tracking technology to match what they were heaving in the patient’s chest to the cataloged conditions” (Davidson 52). In this scenario, the creativity necessary for the innovation was not equally possessed by everyone who took part in the experiment. Few specific students were able to come up with a solution to an unrecognized problem and receive credit for their work. Crowdsourcing can be differentiated from organized complexity and plagiarism because small, originally nonexistent problems are solved. Instead of adding to a collective pool of knowledge, specific niches for certain problems can grow. In such a scenario, the an individual's agency is important for the final product. However, when every crowdsourced solution is examined side by side with every other crowdsourced solution, an individual’s creativity is once again lost in the mass of information. Collective intelligence as it relates to all of humanity is unreliant on an individual’s contribution.

Revised Paragraph

In large cooperative systems, an individual’s input is not important in the grand scheme of the collective intelligence. As one passively contributes to the collective intelligence, “there is not a rag of originality about [his ideas] anywhere except the little discoloration they get from his mental and moral caliber and his temperament, and which is revealed in characteristics of phrasing” (Lethem 225). In one’s attempts to add to the collective intelligence, they inherently plagiarize. In this way, it is difficult to actively contribute something substantial. Johnson describes this difficulty, characteristic of organized systems, through the example of Manchester, a city which has “a personality that self-organizes out of millions of individual decisions, a global order built out of local interactions,” (Johnson 199). In such a city, individual decisions do not have significant impact. For example, when many poor people live in proximity the area distinctly becomes the slums, yet when one poor person lives somewhere it is simply a home with no greater consequence. The collective intelligence is instead derived from the contribution of all individuals involved. The nature of humanity and the potential of knowledge necessitate that individuals have minimal impact on the collective intelligence. Because there are so many people with many problems to solve, it is impossible for one person to significantly contribute to the collective intelligence. On the other hand, crowdsourcing is a much smaller scale cooperative system in which individuals contribute significantly to a solution. For example, creative medical students “came up with a way to put a stethoscope in one ear, using very simple signal-tracking technology to match what they were heaving in the patient’s chest to the cataloged conditions” (Davidson 52). In this scenario, the creativity necessary for the innovation was not equally possessed by everyone who took part in the iPod experiment. Few specific students were able to come up with a solution to an unrecognized problem and receive credit for their work. Crowdsourcing can be differentiated from organized complexity and plagiarism because small, originally nonexistent problems are solved. Instead of adding to a collective pool of knowledge, specific niches for certain problems can grow. In such a scenario, an individual's agency is important for the final product. However, once every crowdsourced solution eventually blends into the collective intelligence with every other crowdsourced solution, an individual’s creativity is lost in the mass of information. While individuals may continually implement more creative solutions, causing them to stand out, Lethem’s plagiarism model states that what seems creative is just an appropriation of various past knowledge. As a result, creative solutions are similarly appropriated to the point where the original creative mind goes unrecognized thereafter. Simply put, there is far too much information and too many slight innovations for any creative individual to stand out in the long run. In the end, the total collective intelligence does not rely on an individual’s contribution.

In revising this paragraph, I tried to respond to every peer comment. One comment was that it was not specific enough in the organized complexity example. By giving an example, I think the argument becomes much clearer. At the end, my peer commented that I was making a contradiction by saying that individual creativity is still lost in the crowdsourcing model because they still make an accomplishment. While that may be true, I went into a deeper analysis upon revision to explain why that accomplishment is not really that important. Even though I stand by my original argument and do not see that section as contradictory, I will look at it once again as I continually revise my thesis. Another peer commented that this paragraph is essentially a comparison of summaries as opposed to real analysis. I think that by substantiating the second half of this paragraph in regards to crowdsourcing, I made more analysis in my connections. However, I realize that the nature of my thesis and my argument may lead to over summarization. My current thesis is definitely not specific enough to make a legitimate argument which is something that I will revise in the future. However, I think that this paragraph now makes a much clearer argument which will help in redrafting the thesis.

Paragraph Revision

Original:

In a similar sense, intelligence is a collaborative effort, as it is a sum of research and facts shared by the world and gathered to form understanding of various topics and fields. Lethem mentions Don Swanson’s work, which shed light on Raynaud’s syndrome solely through the collection and integration of various bits of information sprinkled across various scientific journals (223). Facts alone didn’t solve this problem, even though they were all present in some form, albeit separate. It was the intervention of Swanson, who put the facts together and used them to grasp an understanding of the topic that truly solved the issue. However, Swanson couldn’t call the work his own, since he did none of the research, he merely took other researcher’s works and melded them together to form a new understanding on a pre-existing topic. In this sense, this is a collaboration between Swanson and the researchers he gleamed information from. But at the same time, the “intelligence” that arose from this collaboration is a product of Swanson’s efforts, not the other researchers. The researchers only provided information for Swanson to use. By sorting these facts into a comprehensible format, Swanson brought “intelligence” out of the swarm of facts he collected. In a similar fashion, the AIs described in Johnson’s essay use a series of components that perform simple tasks and report to a single, higher up component which takes the input and then makes sense of the information (206-207). Ultimately, intelligence is composed of a bunch of assorted individual “intelligences,” and is “made” using an understanding of the components, assimilating the cacophony of their voices into a coherent message.

Revised:

In a similar sense, intelligence is a collaborative effort, as it is a sum of research and facts shared by the world and gathered to form understanding of various topics and fields. Lethem mentions Don Swanson’s work, which shed light on Raynaud’s syndrome solely through the collection and integration of various bits of information sprinkled across various scientific journals (223). Facts alone didn’t solve this problem, even though they were all present in some form, albeit separate. It was the intervention of Swanson, who put the facts together and used them to grasp an understanding of the topic that truly solved the issue. However, Swanson cannot be solely credited for this discovery; he merely took other researcher’s works and melded them together to form a new understanding on a pre-existing topic. But Swanson was not altogether removed from the process. Swanson brought “intelligence” out of the swarm of facts he collected, acting as the “overseer” by bringing together the chaotic mess of information. In a similar fashion, the AIs described in Johnson’s essay use a series of components that perform simple tasks and report to a single, higher up component which takes the input and then makes sense of the information (206-207). Much like Swanson’s research, a sum is built using assembled components, many of which are unrelated and ignorant of each other, and are integrated together to create a working product. Ultimately, intelligence is composed of a bunch of assorted individual “intelligences,” and is “made” using an understanding of the components, assimilating the cacophony of their voices into a coherent message.

My paragraph suffered from ambiguous and contradictory wording about Swanson’s contribution, so I cleaned up the sentences to argue my point clearly. In addition, although my peer reviewers didn’t notice, my analysis of Johnson’s AI was a bit lacking and the connection between Swanson and the AI was not fully fleshed out. After contemplating for a bit, I realized my thesis was too broad, and decided to narrow it down a bit, using my revisions as a starting point. The main idea of this paragraph didn’t really change, but some of the connections my peer reviewers pointed out got me thinking of other places in my other paragraphs that could be modified or contained connections I hadn’t realized before. Since my essay isn’t finished yet, I’m still not sure how or where this will exactly fit into my thesis, or even if I’ve completely finished revising it, but this paragraph definitely will help in arguing some aspect of my thesis.

Second Rough Draft

Original 

Copyright is thought to be a way for artists and inventors to receive credit for their ideas; and it is. However, “the primary objective of copyright is not to reward the labor of authors but to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts” (Lethem 224). In other words, copyright prevents others from claiming someone else’s work and at the same time allows that persons work to be built off of. In Cathy Davidson’s essay she describes giving students iPods and “simply [asking] [them] to dream up learning applications for this cool little device” (Davidson 49). The act of copyright therefore allowed the students to take credit for all the applications that came of this project, while still keeping the integrity of Apple. The collaboration of the iPod and the Duke University students lead to countless new uses that transformed the once toy, into an academic tool. However, this does not mean that taking someone’s work and slightly tweaking it is collaboration.

Revised

Copyright is thought to be a way for artists and inventors to receive credit for their ideas; and it is. However, “the primary objective of copyright is not to reward the labor of authors but to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts” (Lethem 224). In other words, copyright prevents others from claiming someone else’s work and at the same time allows that person’s work to be built off of. Sometimes it is necessary for people to collaborate with copyright protections in order to further a certain subject area, such as education. In Cathy Davidson’s essay, “Project Classroom Makeover”, she describes giving students iPods and “simply [asking] [them] to dream up learning applications for this cool little device” (Davidson 49). The act of copyright therefore allowed the students to take credit for all the applications that came from this project, while keeping the integrity of Apple. This provides businesses with an incentive to bring in outside intelligence because, as seen with the iPods, a businesses’ product can be improved and thus lead to more users. Copyright laws, however, are not always this helpful. In many instances copyright law has prevented artists from being able to release new works and has enabled corporations to take advantage of people.

The main changes that I made to this paragraph had to do with adding more analysis that could directly help my thesis. I am still uncertain as to what I want my thesis to be exactly, but I have a much better understanding on what my writing format has to be. Also I can see what kind of details and how much detail is to be expected in each supporting paragraph. As I continued to write this paragraph, the more analysis I did allowed me to see clearer ideas for a good thesis. The main thing I was missing seems to be transitions and a way to continue my argument. Before the peer review my argument got a little weak, but with the extra analysis it is back on track. 

Essay Revision

Original Paragraph

This collective intelligence phenomenon produces results that benefit the whole group of individuals who contribute to it, yet this phenomenon is completely unintentional. In Davidson’s Project Classroom Makeover, the students at Duke University made iPod learning apps in order to receive free iPods from the university. Before Davidson knew it, the, “...iPods suddenly tripled and quadrupled in perceived value: Everyone wanted one” (Davidson 51). With this high value of the iPod, the students were highly motivated to do whatever they could to get their hands on one. What ultimately happened was that the iPod was transformed, “from a listening device into an interactive broadcasting device,” due to the students’ individual efforts to create learning apps to use in their classes. But, remember, this was not the goal of the experiment. The original goal of the experiment was to, “create a calculated exercise in disruption, distraction, and difference: a lesson in institutional unlearning…” (50). Even each student’s goal was not to create a technological revolution; they just wanted free iPods. It was as a result of these individual goals that the unintentional yet greater accomplishment of showing the potential of technology was able to bloom.


Revised Paragraph

The elimination of the fear of plagiarism or any sort of control on the development of ideas has the ability to revolutionize one of the most traditional systems in the world: the education system.. In Davidson’s Project Classroom Makeover, the students at Duke University made iPod learning apps in order to receive free iPods from the university. Before Davidson knew it, the, “...iPods suddenly tripled and quadrupled in perceived value: Everyone wanted one” (Davidson 51). With this high value of the iPod, the students were highly motivated to do whatever they could to get their hands on one. What ultimately happened was that the iPod was transformed, “from a listening device into an interactive broadcasting device,” due to the students’ individual efforts to create learning apps to use in their classes. When free to develop their own ideas, even if they are inspired by existing works, the students were able to accomplish a technological and educational revolution. The ability for the students at Duke to be able to accomplish this is illuminated by the role of a lack of hierarchy in the city of Manchester. The city, “...lay at the confluence of several world-historical rivers: the nascent industrial technologies of steam-powered looms; the banking system of commercial London; the global markets and labor pools of the British empire” (Johnson 196). Without any planners or a government, the city was free to be influenced by the most dominant economies and societies of the West at the time. As a result, “...Manchester attracted a steady stream of intellectuals and public figures...in search of the modern world’s future” (196). Manchester became the center of intellectuals in its prime without any limit on the influence of the environment on it. Such a concept should be applied to the education system in order to make it evolve as much as the city of Manchester did in a mere century-and-a-half.

The main change I made in this paragraph is, first, removing the parts that were basically summaries. Second, I added on a part that supported the first part of the paragraph with an example from Johnson's text, and then I related it to the idea of the fear of plagiarism from Lethem's text. The reason is that all of my paragraphs were originally simple summaries about how all the essays show an element of collective intelligence. In all of my paragraphs, I connected multiple essays to achieve a larger idea. I also had to change my thesis to reflect this change in argument.

My Reflections on Peer Review

Peer review, as an activity is extremely useful in improving the quality of work not only in English class, but also in the scientific community where it acts as a sieve preventing papers of shoddy quality from passing through. Peer review relies on the sort of crowdsourcing and collective learning that Davidson focuses on in her essay. In our peer reviewing exercise, I found that while some of the comments and critiques made by my peers was in fact helpful, the majority of it focused on my grammar and word choice. This criticism will definitely improve my paper, but these are also mistakes I could have identified after proofreading. The value that is really gained from peer review is when a classmate identifies how a certain example could be used, or how a series of thoughts could be strung together(i.e. close read and critique). Honestly, I feel that I am not a good enough writer to peer reviews others work to this caliber. Therein lies the main shortcoming of the peer review process, the quality of it depends on the quality of the readers/writers involved in it. Despite this I do feel that my peers caught onto mistakes and major shortfalls that I would have likely overlooked because I forgot to read the prompt correctly or am simply habituated with writing in a certain, incorrect way.

Response to Peer Editing

Response to Peer Editing

The peer reviewing exercise not only provided criticisms of my own paper, but also broadened my perspective of the two texts. By receiving edits on my own paper, I was able to reflect on my errors and correct what I wasn't able to spot before. This was vital to the improvement of the essay, as it is often difficult to spot one's own errors. When I read the constructive criticism of 2 individuals, I was able to add depth to my paper, remove excess, and spot even more errors that went unnoticed before.

I also learned about ideas that my peers were able to extract from the two passages we were analyzing. While I was not pulling directly from their papers, their unique insights opened my eyes to elements of the essays that I did not interpret beforehand. I was able to use these revelations in relation to my own arguments in order to add depth to my paper. Seeing as the peer review process was so helpful, I will definitely use this process in future papers that I write. 

Peer Review Experience

Overall, I felt that the Peer Review was a beneficial activity for developing a better essay. Through my classmates reading my essay, I found that I used a significant amount of unnecessary summary that sounded nice (aka how I wrote in my high school's advanced English courses), rather than really delving into my own ideas and expanding on them. It was also pointed out to me that my use of quotes, sentence structure, and general organization could be more effective. Through reading my classmates' essays, I was given a new perspective of how they processed the assignment mentally, and how they went about executing it. Another thing that stood out to me in this process is what naturally appears to me as a flaw when I am reading a paper. During high school, the significance of word variation, grammar, and spelling was extremely prominent in the perceived quality of a paper, rather than truly excavating the text and molding new ideas and connections from it. This experience, along with the reviewing of the sample papers and comments, helped me get a better sense of the quality of my essay, and the areas where it needs more work.

Peer Review Review

Given that an essay is already bad, peer review is the highlighter that scribbles over the already glaringly obvious flaws. While it doesn’t hurt to emphasize the parts the paper is already lacking in, I find that in the peer review process there’s not enough time to not only identify the problems, but also to suggest cohesive solutions to them. In my experience, the kinds of problems I find most revelatory in the process are the small nitpicky stylistic and grammar errors that dot every rough draft. While these errors are still important to fix, they certainly do not take priority over the argument of the paper, the logic behind the argument and the flow between thoughts and ideas. Peer review does help, but with the given time constraints of the process, it doesn’t help with the most important parts of writing.

In contrast, the time constraints are beneficial in the sense that in order to review the essay properly, quick analytical thinking is required. Reading through other people’s essays and decomposing their argument and logic is a good way to improve analytical skills similar to the close readings we are assigned. In the end, peer review develops different skills depending on the way the activity is implemented.

Both of my classmates agree that my thesis needs to be improved upon. Overall I do understand that my introduction needs to improved. I went too quickly into the “meat” of the essay rather than explain my thesis well. Alana pointed out a couple places where I missed connections that I could have made as well. I could have connected predictability and organized complexity better, as well as improved my connections between organized complexity and the classroom, which were not clear. She pointed out the question to think about, which makes me realize that though I thought the connection I made between them was clear, to the reader it was not clear at all. Also I need to be clear with my quotes and explain them fully. I did not spend enough time explaining connections that I believed were evident. Also Aakansha pointed out places where I repeated myself without meaning to. I need to go back to those places and add new ideas and connections instead of relying on other thoughts I had expanded upon elsewhere in the paper. Also not only did I repeat ideas, I also repeated connecting phrases and word choices, rather than vary my sentence structure. Also, an off-handed comment of how I forgot to contradict Davidson at one point in my paper lead me to a whole new topic as well, which I have used to build my paper further. Finally, I was also surprised that my classmates did not remove more of my paper through deletions. Going through my paper again, I removed even more of repeated thoughts and making other arguments more concise. Perhaps they were more lenient on sentence length, but I feel like my paper had too much fluff that even my classmates missed some.