All I can say about this is Wikipedia. When I was younger using Wiki for looking up information was the go to site. As I got older I learned Wiki allowed people to edit information on their site, which made the content some what untrustworthy.

All authors should give credit where it's due. Listening to a song the other day I realized the artist stole the beat from another artist's original song. This made me skeptical of the music industry as a whole.

Not all authors compose original content. Some authors take things learned from prior knowledge and put it into their work. I wonder if that is plagiarism to some extent?

I agree 100% with this statement. Different cultures have different understandings and ways of acknowledging ownership.

"Turnitin.com" has become a faster more convenient way for teachers to check for plagiarism among students. I remember my English 1 teacher threatened to fail me because she thought I plagiarized but "turnitin.com" had my back.

A constant warning on every syllabus students receive at the beginning of all classes. The same warning can be most likely found under academic honesty policy.

All and all this article was much more easy to follow than Herrington's for me personally because I am able to follow it better. Though it did not lack in information that Herrington also had. Both were beyond informative on both plagiarism and copyright, these are such important matters for writers, not just ethnical communicators. For college students, I think that it is important to address both of these laws, because without them we are clueless in knowing what we can do with others writing and what protects our own writing.

Overall throughout the article I found myself agreeing with everything that Reyman had to say. Plagiarism in schools is something different from the workplace and is something that needs to be revised in the classroom. Watching the potential affects that plagiarism can have on not just yourself but the people involved is a very serious and important thing that needs to be taught.

I really agree with what Reyman is stating here like I said before, this is something that teachers should consider to take into mind. Students aren't made aware of this information until they are pushed out of college and into the real world. They need to be taught by those who know what it is like out there and who know this information. Plagiarism is not something to be taken lightly, neither in school or work, but the teachers need to help students to further understand their abilities of what they are able to do and not do.

I think this is something that should really be changed and addressed as Reyman states here. It can be extremely confusing for students, myself included, when we are taught for so long never to take someone else's work unless being referenced, even changing around words can be considered plagiarism. But it is a tricky thing to be taught. You don't want to just say to children "Oh this is only in school" because that can be taken way out of context. I think at a certain age, they need to be taught the differences between school plagiarism and workplace plagiarism and save the many headaches that I have had myself on the matter.

As a college student, this would have caused a many much stress and fear of the internet if this was true. But with the way the copyright works there is fair use of the work that is displayed to the public as Herrington discusses. We are permitted use this work.

As we discussed in Herrington's article, there are many different complications and restrictions that come to copyright and what can equal as plagiarism in a work.

This is something that I had great confusion going into my internship where I was handling content writing. I would research information for them and then I would take the information that I had researched and compile it into a article for them. At first I thought this was plagiarism but by referencing the work, as I was taught in class, and used the work as my own, it wasn't plagiarism.

Implied authorship is often times more important for technical writers. The "implied" author is typically the company for which they work for, or create content for. Ownership also usually falls under the company's property, unless otherwise specified. On the contrary, the technical writer that produces the content is the actual author and producer of the material. Even though the technical writer might not always be seen as the sole author or implied author of the content they create, they still hold an amount of representation for themselves and authorship for their portion of the content they create.

A summary:

This article was mainly about the distinctions to be made for plagiarism -- specifically drawing distinctions between academic and workplace settings. Plagiarism is a lot more complex outside of the academic scope of our lives. In an academic setting, students and instructors are taught to be vigilant and hyper-aware towards plagiarism. In an academic setting reusing materials is almost always to be avoided; however, in the workplace, reusing materials is more appropriate (especially for technical communicators and other content creators). In a work setting reusing materials and collaborating for creation of content is cost effective and time efficient. In an academic setting, reusing materials is likely to cause negative consequences.

In this article, Reyman makes a point on the importance of authorship, and how authorship is also a complex term when it comes to a workplace setting. Like we have learned in class through lecture and text materials, there is often an intended author and an actual author. The intended author is usually the company that the technical communicator creates content for. This type of complex authorship relationship lends to reusing materials in the workplace an acceptable thing. Materials such as templates, style sheets, and logos are all things that the company has to reuse to maintain its appearance. It would not be beneficial for the company to constantly re-invent itself (though sometimes re-invention is necessary depending on special circumstances like appealing to a new user base for example).

This connects to Herrington's "Copyright, Free Speech, and Democracy: Eldred v Ashcroft and Its Implications for Technical Communicators." If the copying and re-use is appropriate (and proper ownership is attributed) then it is okay under copyright.

Herrington, T. (2011). Copyright, free speech, and democracy: Eldred v. ashcroft and its implications for technical communicators.Technical Communication Quarterly, 20(1), 47-72

This strict definition of plagiarism leaves no breathing room for work that is derivative of another work, but in a way that expands upon the original's ideas rather than simply taking credit for them.

If the purpose and character of the use is comment or criticism than I imagine it is protected under the 1st Amendment. Whereas, if you are reproducing it for resale, that the use is intellectual property theft, plain and simple. These four factor can be very helpful when discriminating what is criticism protected under freedom of expression from what is simply a re-purposing of owned work.

The concept of "re-usability" in technical writing is an interesting one. The concept itself seems to be an issue of plagiarism, but it is actually an important factor of strong technical writing. In political research studies, a study is deemed to be "progressive" if it builds upon a previous finding or concept, rather than reiterating it. As in political research, technical writers must do the same. In order to produce "progressive" text or media that expands the body of knowledge in a particular area, they must build upon the information that has already been presented by others. In failing to do so, they are only repeating already-known information and not increasing usability or information on a subject. Thus, re-usable technical writing is vital to the continuation of strong technical communication.

Boilerplates are an interesting and overlooked way that text is re-used in work settings in ways that would fall outside the parameters of traditional ideas about plagairism. A real-world example of a boilerplate would be sample bequest language. Oftentimes, nonprofit organizations will include sample bequest language that can be copied verbatim when an individuals makes a bequest in their last will and testament. It is extremely common to see identical sample bequest language in different sources, but it is accepted as text that is standard enough to be directly copied. There is no stated author or copyright on this form of boilerplate language. The challenge for students and technical communicators is in determining which texts are accepted as standard, especially outside of legal texts like bequest language.

If a contracted writer wanted to include their work in a portfolio, would they have a right to do so, or are they technically plagiarizing the legal (but not actual) author of the work?

Here is an infographic that displays some of the guidelines that students are taught to follow in order to not plagiarize. A major problem displayed in the infographic is the fact that there is no reference to copyright and intellectual property laws, or the fair use doctrine. Instead, it is ingrained in the minds of students that they should avoid plagiarism, "cherry picking," and "copycatting" at all costs. http://thevisualcommunicationguy.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Infographic_Did-I-Plagiarize1.jpg

In order for students to understand ethical practices that involve reusing others' work, they need to understand the fair use doctrine. In Writer/Designer: A Guide to Making Multimodal Projects, the authors describe "fair use" as a doctrine that allows individuals to use excerpts of authors' work without permission under certain circumstances. If the author using others' work is doing so for educational purposes, which is the case in students' work, it is typically determined to be fair use. However, one must also consider whether the copyrighted work being used is factual, how much is being used, and how widely distributed the new use of the copyrighted work may be. The closer a text utilizing others' work follows these criteria, the more likely it is to be declared as fair use.

Arola, C. (2014). Writer/Designer: A Guide to Making Multimodal Projects.

In Wickman's "Wicked Problems in Technical Communication", the author discusses the importance of students collaborating in order to tackle the "wicked problem" of the Gulf Oil Spill. In that context, the collaboration was helpful because students came from a variety of disciplines. Here, student writers enter a "discourse community" within a single area of study, but the general benefit applies. Although a student might using resources centered on a single topic, they would still come from a variety of viewpoints and research paradigms. For example, one author may have focused on positivist, quantitative research, while another may have focused on anti-positivist, qualitative research, which would produce different results, despite focusing on the same subject.

Wickman, C. (2014). Wicked Problems in Technical Communication. Journal Of Technical Writing & Communication, 44(1), 23-42.

As noted in Herrington's "Copyright, Free Speech, and Democracy", there are other implications for technical communicators when authorship is determined to be an employer and not an individual. She notes that in cases of corporate authorship, the work is not granted the same copyright protections as work produced by individuals (in the legal sense, as corporation-authored work is often created by individuals too). In this case, a technical writer working for an employer would not be able to make copyright or authorship claims for his or her work, as the employer has the final say over content and modes of production.

Herrington, TyAnna. "Copyright, Free Speech, and Democracy: Eldred v. Ashcroft and Its Implications for Technical Communicators." Technical Communication Quarterly 20.1 (2011): 47-72. Web.

A tool to help students understand sharing and "nuanced understandings of technical ownership" could potentially be the use of the Creative Commons, as described in Writer/Designer: A Guide to Making Multimodal Projects. In using the Creative Commons, students can practice curating texts and documents that derive from a variety of sources, without having to adhere to fair use doctrine and copyright rules. According to their website, the Creative Commons unlocks the "full potential of the internet to drive a new era of development, growth and productivity," which falls in line with general goals of technical communicators. In using the Creative Commons as a learning tool, students can become comfortable with the non-linear, collaborative techniques utilized in technical communication and workplace settings. It would also prepare students for when they are required to adhere to the fair use doctrine, as they would already be well-versed in re-using media and texts. For more on the Creative Commons, visit their website here: https://creativecommons.org/

Arola, C. (2014). Writer/Designer: A Guide to Making Multimodal Projects.

It this scenario is a great example of how technical writers often rescind ownership of the work and credit is instead granted to whoever contracted them.

This Idea is addressed at the beginning of the paper, with reference to "honorary authorship."

Whether done in a group or alone, single sourcing positions the writer as not only an author, but as a content manager. Technical communicators must work as content managers to not only present text in a way that best addresses a rhetorical situation, but to also creatively organize and manage content to effectively fit within several documents simultaneously. Technical communicators must consider which information should be emphasized or understated, and what kinds of content are best suited for certain modes and mediums.

I believe this is central to helping students understand plagiarism. As I mentioned at the beginning of the article, students are taught to fear plagiarism above all else. Because fear of plagiarism is so instilled in students, it becomes difficult for them to transition from an academic setting to the workplace, especially when they engage in technical communication. One of the most effective concepts within modern technical communication is the collaborative, "re-using," and re-purposing approach that contrasts academic writing. Discussing plagiarism as a part of a larger conversation about copyright, authorship and fair use would allow students to better understand why it is so important for authors to be given credit for their work as well as how fair use doctrine can aid in the creation of multimodal, effective technical documents and media.

I like that Reyman noted that certain activities in technical "require" copying and re-use of previous work. In terms of research papers, good resources give a paper credibility and strengthen an argument. For technical communicators, using and re-purposing existing materials creates rhetorically stronger and better informed content. For example, when technical communicators create documents in order to increase product usability, they can reference and build upon the work of previous technical communicators. At the same time, they can use previous work to identify weaknesses that have led to poor usability, thus ensuring that their work is the best possible route towards increased usability.

The lack of academic discussion on the topic of plagiarism demonstrates how much influence the concept of original ownership has over the academic world.

The fact that a new definition of plagiarism cannot be instituted on a departmental level really accentuate how removed academic plagiarism is from professional plagiarism.

Scenarios would make an excellent addition to the investigation of plagiarism as they recognize that different situations come with different expectations of what is considered ethical reuse.

What is considered plagiarism in an academic setting and what is considered plagiarism in a professional setting differs greatly. Teaching plagiarism in this consistently single-minded way may leave students unprepared for adherence to professional standards.

This relates back to the other reading which, at one point, addresses the purpose of copyright law and a public domain.

While copyrights exist to incentivize to creation of new ideas after a while the ideas are added to the public domain (the enormous collection of older works to which everyone has a right to access and reproduce). "Common Knowledge" is an blanket term for that which is in a sort of informal public domain.

Whereas, in an academic context, writing is an exercise meant to demonstrate one's comprehension of a course's content, in a technical writing context writing is an instrument by which information is condensed into a simple and easily shared and reproduced format.

It makes sense that in one scenario making reusable content is frowned upon, and in another it is practically expected.

I have actually never heard of single sourcing so of course I went to look up exactly what it meant which it first came up about using a single supplier. Which I realized had nothing to do with what was being discussed. Then I found the definition of single sourcing publishingis a content management method which allows the same source content to be used across different forms of media and more than one time.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_source_publishing

I am really glad that they brought that situation up, because there are many instances that can be considered plagiarism but aren't addressed as so. Like ghostwriting, it a very tricky situation that you have to determine whether it is plagiarism or not. Many people think that ghostwriting is a form of plagiarism, but that isn't the case when the ghostwriter themselves are knowingly writing these texts.http://bowvalleycollege.libguides.com/c.php?g=10237&p=2276021

The definition of ghost writing is: to write (something, such as a book) for someone else using that person's name http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ghostwrite

This is a very serious matter, especially for english majors with in universities ad colleges. Many students have fears of stealing others works. It is a nerve wracking process, and many use plagiarism checkers online to make sure that nothing it taken from other authors and writers. Many writers criticized and black listed for plagiarism.

This tenant of teaching Plagiarism Awareness to students in Technical Writing is focused on definition (Visit Harrington p. 48 for concrete discussion of legal definitions). By getting students to be aware of the different perspective of who an "author" means, it creates a different idea of content created and whether you have control over your final product. The largest example of this section to facilitate understanding that the creator of content is not always the author is Writing for Hire. In this case, the material does not belong to any given creator, but rather to the company or product it was created for. To help students frame what the boundaries of plagiarism are, Reyman gives these four considerations (65):

1. The purpose and character of the use
2. The nature of the copyrighted work
3. The amount and substantiality of the portionused
4. The effect on the potential market for the work

Essentially, "Universal Design and Its Discontents" debates the advantages and shortcomings of a Universal Design, or a design technology that would be able to effectively convey rhetoric to a universal audience. The article is presented in an online position paper, an interesting choice of mode that is very accessible to many of the academic discourse community; this keeps with the accessibility theme of the discussion. The bulk of the article discusses the inclusion of communication for the disabled community, such as the ASL community. Essentially, while UD is an interesting research and compelling supposition (of something that can be very helpful), I am reluctant to say that it can become a reality.

Like the Albers article from Unit One, I believe that UD is definitely a dynamic concept because communication is constantly evolving. UD would probably shift the rhetoric of media closer to being more accessible for a wide audience demographic. It would definitely be an interesting supplement to develop in the future.

I sympathize for these people because I understand that it is difficult for people to develop a reliable, working aid for their disabilities. Furthermore, institutions focused on "progressiveness" and profit are reluctant to spend more than necessary on these developments; they'd rather spend money on somebody who could potentially work just as hard but without the aid. Could this be a stigma towards people with a disability? Generally, people classified as disabled in anyway are stereotyped as being less able/healthy than people who aren't. Could this reluctance be partially discriminate?

I concur. While I do acknowledge that there's merit to traditional handwriting (handwriting is better for memory), I also acknowledge that people of different contexts and situations may find reading and writing difficult. For example, many bilingual people are able to rattle off in their second languages, but are very slow to read and comprehend what they've read.

In reference to my post, a lot of this could be due to context.

This is another case of interesting mode choice. I really admire how they created an interdisciplinary study with Applied Linguistic elements; it really shows their dedication to the topic. I would really like to know how the academic discourse community responded to their rhetoric. Is their research widely accessible, though?

Rather than thinking of people with disabilities as "others", we should be helping them by creating more accessible technologies and information, but also by creating a dialogue about what would make their lives easier and how they live with a disability and see if we can create something out of their experiences. As technical writers, we aren't always going to have the answers even know what questions to ask. Going to someone and listening to them and their experiences is essential to making the best possible product for the public or any consumer.

I think this is incredibly vital to the argument about technological access for all! I just learned about a year ago that sign languages have differences in accents. I assumed it was just language. It shows that there are at least two barriers for deaf people who do not know ASL, and there could be even more who have not had aces to ASL ever in their lives. I feel that International Sign is great, a nice place to start. However I would like to see other languages added. If google translate can do it, why can't we?

For a minute this part discouraged me. It made me think, can we REALLY have technology for all? I would think with the way the world is advancing, yes.

Another benefit of universal design spoken by someone who identifies as a disabled person. These narratives should be the ones that are heard loudest and first. Knowing the author reaffirms my belief that universal design is the right thing to strive for.

I like how they highlights Williams's insight. I think the main reason that technology is advancing is that more and more demands are needed to be met. Everyday, there is more data to be analyzed, more information to know, and new content to stream. I feel like as we advance if we leave others behind simply because they are not able that says a lot about us as a society.

Again, I completely understand where Godden in coming from. Having accessible information is the right thing to do as to not withhold information from potential consumers. But it is always important to consider the individual vs the general. Even though universal design is beneficial for everyone, it doesn't mean everyone would want to use that technology. (But that doesn't mean we still don't try as creators.)

I understand that point that Godden is trying to make: one technology shouldn't be placed higher or overshadow a previous technology just because it is more accessible? Some people still use pen and paper even through typing up notes can be more accessible to more people. It's all about considering the audience, I believe, and asking the appropriate questions. Consider what the consumer wants before anything else.

I find that this ideal will always hold true, for the world holds thousands of languages, yet people fail to convey their exact ideas with each other even in the same language. People are all different, and contexts vary across culture. Even if Universal Grammar were plausible (a common language inherent in all humans- as suggested by Noam Chomsky but disproved of by Daniel Everett), rhetoric would still have the issue of conveying the same meaning. For example, if everybody were to speak a single language, then contextual differences may make it difficult for two culturally clashing conversationalists to understand a dialogue- such as Shinto Buddhism to a Catholic. Even in English, it is difficult for colloquialism to translate across other native English speaking countries. Essentially, while Universal Design is a "Utopian ideal" and could bring about accessibility for a wider audience (as Andrew McClure stated ), I believe that it just isn't possible as of now or any near future endeavors.

This is the first time we are reading about accessibility from a person that labels themselves as "disabled" which I think is something to consider heavily. I believe that hearing the voices of the minority is always the first step when confronting an issue. Knowing that this author identifies as disabled has definitely got me interested in what he has to say.

This woman was also mentioned in the previous article.

After reading the Williams's piece, this seems really harsh. The idea of universal design is so important to digital creation and providing information to all people. And Williams proved that accessibility is a good thing and can "contribute to higher levels of education and perhaps higher levels of income as well."

This is so unfair. Disabled people already have a disadvantage in society, and now schools can't provide them with the help they need? If we can land a man on the moon, if we can create camera that can see cells, if we can fly drones, we can make technology accessible to all.

I completely agreed with this in the article in which it originated in. Often, older people like my mother find that technology is a burden to them. They do not feel included because they do not understand it. Educating and providing resources is the best thing we can do to make sure people are technologically literate.

I understand where Hsy is coming from, really I do. But it sounds to me that he's complaining about not being included or able to understand a piece of publication. While it is important to consider audience in all possibilities, this was a journal for people interested in Deaf Studies, who would know ASL. They would be the primary audience. The secondary audiences would be included Hsy, and yes, they did not accommadate for him...but isn't that what most people with impaired sight feel when looking at screens? Or hearing impaired people when they see a video without subtitles? If Hsy actually knows how it feels to not be accommodated, I find it highly problematic that he can still say that universal design is a myth. If the DSDJ thought about universal design, he would have been able to listen to video clips or read the transcript just fine. Universal design is all about not excluded any potential audience, not just the disabled audience.

I'm so glad a person with a disability is on this. I think its odd when people who are able talk about disabilities. It doesn't make sense.

I think it's important that this videos also have subtitles.

But if we all will end up with disability at one point in our lives, why wouldn't we try to be accessible so we won't be neglected when it's our turn? I find this argument to be very grim and concerning. If disability is inevitable for all of humanity, then we should try harder to commit to universal design, not try to devalue it.

I think it's wonderful that we have journals for deaf people. I would hope that the writers in these journals would be deaf as well in order to create a more personal experience with the reader.

Firstly, I would like to know hoe one becomes a media theorist. Sounds Interesting.

I assume that he makes these statements with the intent that he will either prove or debunk them.

This is the mode and main idea. In comparison to an academic paper or pdf, this mode seems much more accessible to any communications-related community; the tone seems a lot more informal and inclusive. I assume that they intend to make the audience outreach go beyond the academic community.

Universal Design eliminates people from the workforce. Like this section of the article says, " voice recognition software for the visually impaired could be seen to eliminate the need for assistants and note-takers"(Godden and Hsy). One benefit of universal design is the idea that it could get rid of some of the stressful jobs that some people have to do. Universal design is also accessible to everyone. It is also less reliant on people. Disabled people don't have to worry about relying on another person's help. They can figure it out, and do it by themselves. Everyone can live to be more independent on themselves.

I find the examples that Clark uses to describe the idea of universal design to be very interesting. He uses examples like a unicorn, Holy Grail, or earthly Paradise to describe it. I think that describing universal design like that is a little over-exaggerating. Although it is impossible to make something that helps everyone, it is not that hard to make like the examples the person in this statement thinks it is. No one has ever tried to ever reach the goal. This is the reason why I believe that Clark thinks this way.

Universal design is the idea of helping every person no matter what their ability is. But this statement says, "Rob Imrie interrogates the limitations of the universal subject that UD posits, nothing that "UD rejects design that fails to respond to, and interact with, everyone irrespective of their socio-cultural status and bodily capabilities and capacities""(Godden and Hsy). The main idea of universal design is to help everyone of every kind no matter who they are or what there capability is. But why does Imrie say that it rejects the idea to interact with everyone. I believe that this statement is not true or it is just what one person thinks about the idea. Universal design is supposed to interact with everyone and help everyone in a sociable environment.

I disagree with this statement. I believe that reciprocity is a universal subject. Reciprocity means the exchanging things for mutual benefits. Why does this statement say that, "it should not need to flatten us out into a universal subject in the process."(Godden and Hsy)? Is it saying that is should not be considered universally? Is it saying that the idea of universal design should not be reciprocated? Why not? Universal design would only help people and make their lives better. It is not going to harm anyone. I think that universal design should be brought outside of the world. It will do good things for everyone.

Failure of universal design, does not mean that we have failed to recognize every single person in the world. I think of failure of being one step closer to success. We learn from our mistakes. Failure helps us recognize what we have done wrong, so that we can improve on it the next time we try something. We will be able to do what we need to do with caution, and realize that nobody is perfect.

I understand that the goal of UD is problematic because; that would require the world to be of no mistakes and everyone would be living in their own perfect world, but that doesn't mean that it's going to harm anyone. UD is an impossible goal to achieve, and I'm pretty sure everyone is aware of it, but it will be helpful to everyone. UD would make everyone's life a whole lot easier. We're not saying that we should change every product or every product that we make from now on has to flow with the idea of universal design. If every product in the world went with the idea of universal design, then the world would be too perfect and people would be too scared to live in it. I am just saying that some projects along the way could be thought with the idea of being universally designed.

UD often fails because; it doesn't have a particular audience. All objects, resources, or tools have a particular audience. I do believe that UD is not possible since, it is hard not to focus on a particular audience. If products didn't have a specific audience then, it might fail in the real world or no one would ever notice it. Universal design is a difficult idea to cover, since you have to think of every kind of person while making your invention.

Why is Rick against the idea of universal design? He is a disable academic, so shouldn't he be for it? Universal design can do many good things for us. It might be impossible for inventors to think about every kind of person when making their object, but I believe that they already made a few objects that could be made for everyone. For example, in the previous article that I read called: " Disability, Universal Design, and the Digital Humanities" it talks about an automated garage door. Automated garage doors close by themselves with just a click of one button. I believe that everyone can or is able to use this kind of tool. It's a tool that can make everyone's life a whole lot easier.

With the acceptance of UD failing, we can understand how to incorporate it into society. Nothing is perfect. Similar to stereotyping and prejudice, we have to accept that people will be biased no matter what. We can try until we are red in the face, but we will always have a prejudice towards people. We simply must accept it and hope to catch ourselves when we make these judgments and get to know the person. Hopefully we can inact that concept with UD.

The more we work with these people, the better off we are. I can't help but think of Stephen Hawking and how he is able to function in society with the help of technology. Although, he is not one hundred percent able bodied, he is still valued in society because he has technology that allows him to speak. Without that technology, we would not have known how smart and beneficial he is to society. I am sure there are so many people who could benefit society but they do not have the means or access. With UD, we can try to make that happen.

I am beyond glad that I had the opportunity to read this article. There are many things from here that I did not understand or was not aware of that was involved in the copyright clause. I kept wondering why I hadn't yet been taught this as a writer? Why isn't this information taught in a classroom at each college and university? Why is this not required? There were several terms throughout this article that I didn't understand and included definitions for so that I could get across that now I have a better understanding. I am not a law major, or minor and now I wish in some way that I was. So that I could be more informed of the rights that I have when it comes to protecting my work. There has been so much development that I wasn't even aware of. Herrington really used the correct cases to help example everything each step of the way. As a writer and a reader this article really opened my eyes about the way things work in the copyright world.

Connecting this article along with Reymen's work, there are so many similarities. But for his article he is discussing the plagiarism that occurs and how these laws are reinforced. They both complemented one another as I read through both.

I feel as though technical writing has helped in a way to develop the copy right clause even further than it already had been. With this type of laws, and free use and protection it helps to show the boundaries and freedom that technical communicators have going for them in their work field.

This is a part of moral rights which ares of creators of copyrighted works generally recognized in civil law jurisdictions and, to a lesser extent, in some common law jurisdictions. They include the right of attribution, the right to have a work published anonymously or pseudonymously, and the right to the integrity of the work. Which had been first recognized in France and Germany. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights

To be able to come up with such a balance could not have been easy, just reading this it shows the amount of complexity it has taken to come up with the laws that we have today for copyright and fair use. Free use and protection of ones rights of course needs restrictions and small things to guarantee that nothing goes out of line, and no one takes advantage of such a privilege that we have. It isn't just with authors, but with musicians, and film makers, photographers and more.

"Fair use is a legal doctrine that promotes freedom of expression by permitting the unlicensed use of copyright-protected works in certain circumstances" It's amazing to think all that we couldn't do if this doctrine hadn't been created for us to be unlicensed use of the copyright of works. We wouldn't be able to do has much as we do on social media that is a fact.

Probably a very known word, but I actually have never heard it so here is the definition that I found: Plaintiff-a person who brings a legal action I am not really familiar with law terms.I definitely have taken away a lot of this information though. I never realized how extension the first amendment went. It's something that every writer should know about. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plaintiff

But what makes something content based? Isn't most of the content we create content based, as in it contains content?

This information was very insightful. Now I knew that there of course were limitations to what happened involving written work and speeches, but I hadn't realized that they actually had limitations to where you spoke those speeches based on noise production. In which that case it would make sense for that to be limited from hospitals.The restrictions are mostly made by the city. and what occurrences that they have had. https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/95-815.pdf

The reason that the act was put in motion also was to match the rights that were also put in place in England.I think this was a interesting decision made by President Clinton made in 1998, it really does help to benefit not only the estates and heirs of individuals but benefit corporations producing entertainment and other intellectual property will also gain from the fact that the term for “work for hire” has been extended from 75 to 95 years. https://www.ibpa-online.org/article/the-sonny-bono-copyright-term-extension-act/

A summary:

I started this article with three questions:

1. Why do we copyright materials? We copyright materials to ensure intellectual property and creative innovation, protection for the author, and benefit for society and the author.
2. When did we first begin to copyright materials? For the United States, essentially since the "Framers" or "Founding Fathers" created the Constitution.
3. What materials need to be copyrighted? This was a complex thing to answer, the obvious answer is papers have that a specific author. The chart that I also linked in another annotation was also helpful in answering this question. Basically any material that is produced -- recorded sounds, music, architecture (blueprints?), books, poems, the list goes on. Even unpublished, unauthored works are copyrighted.

I was able to find all of the answers within the article, after a finished reading.

I did not realize that the legal aspects of copyright were so extensive. I found a website that has a descriptive timeline of courtcases, rulings, laws, and acts that have effected copyright in the United States since before 1787. Georgia State University is even included on the timeline--due to a fair use issue in 2014.

Intellectual property is a property right that can be protected under federal and state law, including copyrightable works, ideas, discoveries, and inventions. The term intellectual property relates to intangible property such as patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade tradesecrets. http://definitions.uslegal.com/i/intellectual-property

This is an encouragement to all types of writers -- not just technical communicators.

I do feel there is a correlation between freedom of speech and innovation -- which, like Herrington says, keeps the "Framer's" idea of advancing knowledge and democratic participation. Freedom to speak in agreement or disagreement of what our government does (or does not do) can lead to political action and change.

Herrington, T. (2011). Copyright, free speech, and democracy: Eldred v. ashcroft and its implications for technical communicators.Technical Communication Quarterly, 20(1), 47-72

However, it seems like it is difficult for technical communicators to claim sole authorship of the content they create.

The time limit for authors to have the rights is usually after seventy years after their death. This is the copyright to perform or display their work.These are very exclusive rights to have for artists and authors. http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ15a.pdf

And hopefully influence society positively. To participate in democratic interaction, technical communicators must think critically and consider multiple points of view (and potential audiences/users) during their creation process.

This relates to the complex definition of authorship mentioned in Reyman's "Rethinking Plaigarism for Technical Communication." I made an annotation that references authorship in the way we covered it in class during lecture.

Without an estimable public domain, those looking to advance upon established ideas will have to turn to the private sector where there is a profit motive.

When the sharing and development comes coupled with a profit motive, large portions of the population, particularly those lacking in resources, are unable to contribute to the process of intellectual development. The less people are allowed to contribute, the slower the development.

It should be noted that the author of this essay makes no secret of their disagreement with the Supreme Court's decision. She may be offering information, consciously or unconsciously, that favor her biases.

This depends on the circumstance. Sometimes the company or client will ask the technical communicator to develop something that is completely new in the context of content or design. I agree with what Herrington continues to say in the following quotation, that the actions the technical communicator takes is more complex. Our service learning project in class is helping us experience this complex process (of developing content) that involves a lot of communication between us and the client, revising, collaborating, and even conforming to specific outlines like a style sheet or template.

The ability to access and reference earlier work is essential for technical writers. That is why decisions like Eldred v. Ashcroft have an enormous affect on the field of technical writing and, by proxy, courses like this one.

This interpretation of the intellectual property clause is very charitable towards those looking to expand on older ideas with particular older works as a jumping off point.

I like how this is phrased, it reminds me of Wickman's "Wicked Problems in Technical Communication." The technical communication profession is a necessary one. Technical communicators are versed in rhetoric, and finely tuned rhetorical techniques are essential to make social and political changes. As technical communicators, we deliver important information to our users in the most accessible way. Even though it may not be our intended goal, we can create changes through our work.

Wickman, C. (2014). Wicked Problems in Technical Communication. Journal Of Technical Writing & Communication, 44(1), 23-42.

While the decision moves in favor of the very narrow-minded definition of plagiarism and intellectual property ownership, it does at least offer a greater amount of protection for those utilizing copyrighted works for the sake of education and scholarship.

While the sharing and/or criticism of copyrighted works are still reasonably protected under fair use, the creation of derivative works and the expansion of the general pool of public knowledge has been damaged severely by the decision.

I think that this is a really unique interpretation of the "American national ideal." First, Herrington notes that the copyright clause allows the United States to become stronger intellectually, which leads to overall strength of a nation. Second, he notes that is also is an example of the strive for egalitarianism and democracy, which is a unique, but accurate, take on the copyright clause. Intellectual property laws and the copyright clause allow individuals to take credit for their work and prohibit them from taking credit for the work of others. While the laws are broken occasionally and copyright infringements do happen, the laws themselves symbolize the American ideals of equality and a democracy in which everyone has a voice.

In short, Eldred v. Ashcroft ruled that the 1998 Copyright Term Extension Act does not violate the copyright clause or the first amendment right to free speech. The 1998 Copyright Term Extension Act extended copyright term to seventy years after a creator's death. For the full text of the ruling, see the opinion of the court, written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-618.ZO.html

I think it is important to understand the strict scrutiny imposed on legislature that limits "content-based" speech and the mid-level scrutiny imposed on legislature limiting "content-neutral" speech in a more general sense, outside of the Eldred v. Ashcroft case. A copyright extension would limit access to a variety of media, making it a content-neutral limitation. That being said, constitutionality of that type of restriction should be subject to the O'Brien Test. According to that test, a restriction is only constitutional if

1. Congress has authority to create the restriction
2. The restriction is to promote a significant government interest
3. Said interest is not meant to limit free expression
4. The restriction is not imposed further than necessary to carry out the government interest.

Although these criteria seem reasonable, I question what the "significant government interest" would be in extending copyrights. I also wonder if the interest would be worth the negative implications of the statute for technical communicators and other media curators. For more information on the O'Brien test, here is a brief summary: http://mspillman.iweb.bsu.edu/news409/FirstAmendTests.pdf

Technical communicators have a unique position in terms of the post-Eldred interpretations of copyright and fair use. Sometimes, authorship is clear, and technical communicators are guaranteed speech protection and can maintain copyright claims. However, sometimes original, expressive pieces that would typically fall under the "clear authorship" umbrella of work may be composed in a work for hire setting. In that case, the author is deemed to be the corporation or employer, which means the technical communicator is not granted authorship rights, even if the piece was created individually. The same rule applies for routine and administrative texts written by technical communicators in a workplace setting.

Here, it appears that the Court sees original work and the use of others' work as in opposition to one another. However, as noted in "Rethinking Plagiarism in Technical Communication," technical communicators blur the lines of original content, as effective products and documents build upon the work of other technical communicators in order to present new information. However, because of the "re-use" of other content, the newly-generated content cannot be determined to be completely original, even though it would likely be more effective than completely original technical content. Similarly, a decent study in a peer-reviewed journal typically contains a "literature review" section at the beginning of the article. In doing so, background is provided for the new information or findings presented. In citing previous documents in a literature review, new information is more credible, even though the full body of text is not entirely original.

Reyman, Jessica. "Rethinking Plagiarism for Technical Communication." Technical Communication 55.1 (2008): 61-67. Web.

In Reyman's "Rethinking Plagiarism for Technical Communication," the author discusses the ways that college students have been programmed to fear plagiarism, despite the non-conventional definitions of plagiarism within technical communication. Such definitions allow technical communicators to build upon the work of other authors, which enables them to work within a particular discourse to present new information or interpretations and expansions of other information. The fair use doctrine noted here is the appropriate avenue for technical communicators to re-use copyrighted work in order to produce better texts and products.

Reyman, Jessica. "Rethinking Plagiarism for Technical Communication." Technical Communication 55.1 (2008): 61-67. Web.

In the beginning of the article, the implications of Eldred v. Ashcroft appeared to be relatively severe for technical communicators, as the 20-year extension to copyrights would significantly limit the sources available to them. However the fact that the fair use doctrine still applies after the ruling provides technical communicators with a "loophole" in the sense that they can still re-use and re-purpose texts within the parameters of the fair use doctrine. In Writer/Designer: A Guide to Making Multimodal Projects, the first prong of the fair use doctrine states that the purpose of a text must be used for "educational, nonprofit, criticism, commentary, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research." One could argue that the vast majority of technical communication falls under at least one of these uses. However, there is still a chance that one could argue that technical communication is about capitalism and product sales, which brings into question whether the "loophole" will remain as future Supreme Courts interpret copyright law.

Arola, C. (2014). Writer/Designer: A Guide to Making Multimodal Projects.

It is peculiar that this was declared unconstitutional for several reasons when the fair use doctrine is applied. First, The Nation, which is an informative political news magazine, published the text in order to inform the public, and likely to critique it. Both of these uses are allowed under the first prong of the fair use doctrine as described in Writer/Designer: A Guide to Making Multimodal Projects. Second, the magazine only published a small portion of the 500-page book, which is also allowed under the doctrine. However, it is unclear whether the book had been officially published, and it is likely that The Nation's use of the quotes would reach a large audience, so it fails the fair use doctrine in that regard. Because it only meets two of the four criteria, it is a tricky case, but I still believe it fell close enough within the fair use doctrine to be considered constitutional.

Arola, C. (2014). Writer/Designer: A Guide to Making Multimodal Projects.

Here, Slack, Miller, & Doak describe the role of technical communicators as the transmitters of messages, not authors. However, as this was stated in 1993, I believe that the role of technical communicators has evolved over time. In "Wicked Problems in Technical Communication," Wickman discusses the role of technical communication in solving "wicked problems." In Sullivan's "Beyond a Narrow Conception of Usability Testing," she argues that technical communicators have a distinct role in promoting increased product usability. In both articles, a major theme is that the technical communicator is an individual curator with a unique set of ideals and goals, which proves that technical communicators are seen as authors more than ever before. To get a better understanding of the role of technical communicators as authors, refer to this infographic: http://stuffwriterslike.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/future-of-technical-writing.png

Sullivan, Patricia (1989). Beyond a Narrow Conception of Usability Testing. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 32(4).

Wickman, C. (2014). Wicked Problems in Technical Communication. Journal Of Technical Writing & Communication, 44(1), 23-42.

As acampbell30 also noted regarding this quote, we often think of cultural production and distribution at the aggregate level, but individual rights such as free speech allow individuals to participate in democracy. In terms of technical communicators, they have the opportunity to produce social change, whether intentionally or not. While activism and protest come to mind when one thinks of the term "social change," social change often flies under the radar. Social change that could be produced by technical communicators could be the ways that we gather information digitally or a slow cultural shift in the American writing process.

I originally thought the release of "The Happy Birthday Song" to public domain was a result of the time of ownership expiring, but when I looked for news articles, it turns out the song's release to public domain is a lot more complicated.

I also was able to find a useful chart as I did further research about time limits. It breaks down copyright terms for many different types of works: unpublished written works, published written works, musical compositions, and architectural works to list a few. It also separates each category by publish date, and gives dates for when the copyright term moves into public domain!

One can read the CTEA for free online with the following link: http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/s505.pdf

An interesting section I saw (and have never though about before) is enclosed in section 505--4, starting on page 4. This section details the exceptions to copyright law extended to food service and drinking establishments (restaurants, bars, coffee shops, etc.). Most restaurants and coffee shops (and even grocery stores) I have been to always have music playing in the background (an exception being the jukeboxes you kind sparsely find in Waffle Houses), but I have never questioned the copyright logistics of this -- or considered how the playing of the music relates back to the artist's ownership. After reading this act, I have an understanding of why these places can play music without charge (if it is not a live performance of the original artist).

I have not thought about the purpose of freedom of speech in this way before. I've never considered individuals having the ability to "produce" and "distribute" culture. When I think of the term "culture," I think of a collective whole rather than an individual, but individuals do make up the whole. It makes sense -- if enough individuals say the same thing, it eventually adds up to make a difference, and that is what democracy is all about.

This is dual-edged: as technical communicators, we create and consume materials that serve to further knowledge and learning (or impact business interests). This naturally leads us to be participants in social and political interactions, or rather democratic interactions, like Herrington mentions in this article. I feel that the need to create content or develop solutions (to problems) is often driven by economic, social, or political problems.

Another point to be made here is that as technical communicators, our emphasis lies on creating content for our audience to use. We want our content to be for the users' benefit, the authors' benefit is of lesser importance.

From technical writing stand point, it is certainly good for international communication to have copyright legislation that can be translated and enforced across borders, however, one could argue that harmonizing with a system that limits the reach of public domain will damage communication and development in the long run, as those without the money to purchase access will have much less to work with.

I'd always thought that the idea of free speech was in reference to opinions exclusively, but I suppose even opinions require some level of intellectual foundation. I wonder at what point an opinion ceases to be a critique begins to impede on a copyright.

I didn't know that the main reason for copyright laws was to promote advance learning and knowledge creation. In agreement with the statement above, there would be no reason to create something if everyone else could just take credit for it unless it's copyright protected.

The spreading of these ideas is the job of the Technical Writer, so it is important for them to remember why and when they are given free access to to use copyrighted ideas in a derivative fashion.

I really like this statement because it gives insight on limitations of technical writer.

In Miranda's succinct summary of this section, it allows to build on current benefits because of this ruling. Materials can no longer be hoarded or manipulated by families of the deceased with the creation of a material statute of limitations. With the allowance of time, it does create a middle ground with accepting the legacy of the author and their work. This ruling also created the wealth of "open source" material. Meaning that classics that are ingrained into our society's lore can now be republished, translated, or re-used without legal risk. For Technical Communicators, this is an important resource to be aware of.

They have the potential of these legal options, given that they fit the criteria described in the above article. However, understanding the difference between personal ownership and business ownership is vital information when navigating the business realm with plagiarism in mind.

Essentially, Technical Writers have options to protect their manipulation of materials, given that they fit within the legal criteria.

Continuing with the previous dialectic, writers should consider the type of product they are making. Whether it's creating or repackaging, communicators should keep legal terms of protection in mind.

I suppose the question of what kind of material a Technical Communicator makes depends on the situation. However, it is important for the communicators to keep this question in their mind as they create prototypes of potential projects. Understanding this question helps the creators understand their limitations with outside sources.

I wonder if the main difference between this and the Harper & Row V. Nation Enterprises is that the potential act of plagiarism in the book was not the entirety of the product sold, just an accessory to the created content.

Reyman mentions while describing the identity of the author of any given material. It is common to have material that belongs to a business rather than its human creator.

Many works utilizes material that could be otherwise labeled as plagiarism for the sake of protecting the author, but these court rulings are more about the material than the author. It makes sense that satire, critical commentary, and judgments could be undesirable to the author. However, when considering the audience and the use of material, it is clear that is not plagiarism.

Reyman calls for more dialogue following this model. If research can be done on material success and failure, then research between professionals and academia must be on the same page, as well. If this information was readily available and discussed with students, then they would be more prepared for the potential plagiarism choices they will make as professionals.

The struggle, as mentioned in Reyman's article, to create clear, uniform terms for what grants plagiarism seems to be ever present. Unfortunately, it seems to be a frustrating case-by-case decision, rather than the systematic "copying is stealing" ideal in schools from Reyman's examples.

This section is a fascinating appeal to the Right of Free Speech. It seems to allude to the American ideal that your work identity is crucial to your societal identity. It would be completely natural, then, to assert that your business voice is your voice and representation.

Consideration of the public is what fuels information use in Technical Communications. This is precisely why there are instances of re-use and copying formats. There is a benefit to the audience to remain familiar, at times, and there could be a disadvantage to always push material to be unique and individual.

This is the overall theme of Reyman's work. There is a difference between morality and ownership in the US, and those differences are what make scenarios seem grey.

Reference further about effects, other names, and more summary.

In Reyman's article, "Rethinking Plagiarism For Technical Communications", it is stated that these definitions are important for technical communication educators to bring into the classroom.

This paragraph seems to suggest that, in America, one does not hold exclusives rights to their new ideas because one has a right to ownership of one's own work. Instead, intellectual property rights are a short term reward for contributing to a much larger pool of publicly owned information.

This clause seems to be written as a way of benefiting society as a whole, rather than the individual contributors.

While skeptics may say this will up the cost, I will argue that it will lower. However, I think we might run into some problems with making audio voices more accurate to suit the needs of the blind. Also we may need a screen if the blind person is communicating with someone who can see.

This reminds me that our library at GSU has braille paper available for print. I have seen it behind the desk. Though, I do not know if we have blind technology. I am sure we must have some, but it would be interesting to find out if we did.

In the end, universal design is meant to help everyone. The innovations that come from trying to make digital media accesible could end up changing how we all consume and interact with media. By failing to adhere to universal design, creators are "dooming" society's growth and prosperity. Technical writers can use this information to think about how we present information and how we communicate to people who may not be able bodied. Learning how to communicate to different kids of people is an essential to technical communication. Universal design allows for personal and societal growth. It should not be ignored. We should all make a better effort as creators to make things more accessible.

I think this hits the nail on the head when it comes to universal design. It's just the right thing to do; being inclusive is just the morally sound thing to do. In primary school, we are taught to play with everyone and include everyone in birthday parties, games of tag, and giving out valentines. Why should that stop especially when by neglecting a portion of the population, we are in turn withholding information that is accessible to able bodied people around the globe? Technology shouldn't be used to disregard or neglect people. Technology is for and should be accessible to everyone. As technical writers, we need to think about what the purpose of technology is and why using it to withhold information from a certain type of person is, in a sense, failing to do our job.

This is such an interesting point because it diverges from a conversation about accessibility for people with disabilities and introduces the classists ways of our society. If websites can not be use on mobile devices and that is all some families have because of the high cost of computers and laptops, then you lose the audience that doesn't have access to a desktop or laptop, either in one moment or at all. This is a problem that I have with website designers. Even though, I am an able bodied consumer with both a laptop and mobile devices, I find it irritating at times when I can't pull up a website fully on my iPhone. The question comes down to: are creators aware that they are alienating potential audiences when they neglect to worry about accessibility?

For one of my other classes, my final project is to create a website. I know as a consumer that I want my website to be able to be accessed on mobile devices and will do usability testing to make sure. And now after reading this article, I believe that I should think about all possible audiences including people with disabilities as well when creating my website so I'm part of the solution and not the problem.

I can understand this to some extent but it sort of feels like he is saying, "All Lives Matter" in a response to "Black Lives Matter".

Again, the curb cut outs ended up helping everyone. While I understand that time is precious and time is money, but innovation is forever and necessary for the growth of our society. The time that it takes to conceptualize and create a plan for accessibility is important to a large part of your possible audience. Why wouldn't you take the time to make your creation accessible?

Very true. I think people don't understand that technology is tool, not a hand that is in every fiber in our being.

I just really like this quote. I feel our need for the best and brightest, our impatience for the fastest loading speeds, and our general narcissistic attitudes create this ideal that plain is abnormal; and ugly, and that to be perfect we must fix. This is a very 17th century way of thinking, as philosophers during this time thought we were diamonds in the rough that need to go a polishing process in order to be naturally beautiful. In this age, we worship what we create and hate what has created us.

I am glad that Williams put a personal experience on how he first become aware of the depth of struggles people who are disabled have. I believe that often people who are disabled feel like they will not be understood, and therefore do not say anything when ableism gets in the way of them enjoying the world's opportunities, such as technology.

I think the idea of consciously thinking about accessibility is a big one. It can not be an afterthought, but rather a forethought. "How can we make sure this is readily accessible to any possible audience?" is the question that should be answered in conception, not production. If we as creators take the time to ask ourselves this question, imagine how much more would be available to all of our fellow humans? Just like how Netflix offers its movies and shows in different languages, we need to really consider how our creations as technical writers can reach all possible audiences.

Any innovation is good innovation! Creating things to improve the built environment in the long run will help many kinds of people. I think about Siri and any intelligent personal assistant software and if their creators realized how awesome Siri could be for people who might be visually impaired. Were they thinking about them or just able bodied consumers? Whatever the case may be, that innovation ended serving a greater good than intended.

I wanted to learn more about Mace and how he coined the term "universal design", and I found this website from the RL Mace Universal Design Institute that further explains the principles behind universal design. It was fascinating to see that universal design is meant for not only disabled people, but really, for everyone. Having right and left handed scissors available in classrooms would be considered universal design, and so does wheelchair accessibility in public buildings, which Williams talks about later in the reading; the use of curb cut outs were to allow people in wheelchairs to use sidewalks more easily but it was really helpful to delivery people, parents with strollers, and in reality, everyone.

The goal of universal design and the principles behind it aren't just about people with disability but anyone that might one day have a hardship. That's why we should care about it because we all one day will need it.

While I am sure that the study meant no harm or anything, I am sort of confused as to why they didn't include sound. I mean, that would pretty obvious to me.

I like that Williams states his thesis here clearly. Personally, I think theses help as a road guide for reader. The help resent the information that points the reader towards the author's purpose, instead of making the reader search for the purpose themselves.

Forgetting who you are creating for and what the purpose is is a big "no no" for anyone who studies rhetoric. Excluding large parts of your audience can be detrimental in any scenario. That's why I think that identifying and considering your audience is the first priority when creating anything that could be accessible to the public.

Inclusivity in creation and technology should be a goal in all creators' minds. The internet is for everyone! Technology is for everyone! Universal design and considering the largest possible audience is a great start to creating things that everyone can, and should be able to, use.

While considering audience, it is important to consider that not everyone who could come across your work will be able bodied. I think that Williams is very correct in saying that the disabled are neglected by digital content creators. Possibly because we as a society neglect the disabled in many aspects of our day to day lives. The internet and technology in general should not be included as there are a necessity now in everyone's lives. We should strive to be inclusive as possible while creating any digital work.

I think this really shows how disabled people experience technology on an entirely different scale. it shows that there is not a one way street to technology advancement, and certainly not a one way street to information.

I had never thought of this before.

I think it is interesting that little research has been done into the subcultures of the United States and technical communication. We have such a varying population made up of all ethnicities all working, in many instances, in the same workplace. I think this speaks volumes about how the author believes we don't like to talk about race in this country because it creates problems. However, not talking about this issue and not conducting research perpetuates existing racial issues and creates new ones.

As more people become aware of the inequalities in the work field, in technical writing and beyond, more articles are being published on the subject. I think this is beneficial because it creates a dialogue about race again and also educates those in the majority about problems we may not think about or experience on a day to day basis. It is these people who have power to make changes as well as the minorities who are marginalized.

I think that by enacted this color blind theory in the classroom, technical writers are doing a disservice to their students. Many think race is a non issue in this field but discrepancies still exist in the workplace and I believe that students should be aware of this so they can know what obstacles they are facing. This can also help those of us who don't belong to a minority bridge the gap between us.

Race and ethnicity is the discussion in the opening of this article. The comparisons of income, health, education between marginalized groups and their white counterparts is a strong and convincing argument. The article speaks about a few technical writing pieces on the topic of racism and it comes to no surprise that the topic of racism itself is small within this field. Many believe simply by talking about race, they are creating a race problem.

I agree with the author's viewpoint that the election of President Obama serves as a good example of what one can accomplish in this country but does not solve the problem of racism. I believe that when Obama was elected too much emphasis was placed on how his race showed others there were "no excuses" when it comes to race holding people back. Instead, the problem of racism needs to be targeted in the systems it affects and occurs within like the workplace.

The Hispanic population is the largest minority group, increasing 43% in ten years. There still exists inequalities in employment, income and health because of race. Despite having an example of a member of a marginalized group running our country, these issues still exist.

After events like the Civil Rights movement racism became a topic of less concern and wasn't discussed as in depth as it once was. With racism still a factor in America, the communication of the subject of racism is not one that is talked about as much as other problems and less is written accurately on the subject. Some believe that race is not relevant and that acknowledging color only adds to racial problems.

The election of President Obama and the Civil Rights movement were both high profile events that gave many the world view that racism wasn't a prominent issue in the United States. This article talks about the few technical communications on race and ethnicity in the United States. It is not surprising to find just small amounts of writing on the subject because a large number of people do not want to discuss race.

Many social changes in our country, like the election of President Obama and the Civil Rights movement give people the perception that many of our obvious race discrepancies have been solved but nationally this is not the case. These inequalities still exist and the amount of minorities in our country is growing.

This article begins with issues of inequalities between white Americans and minority races. The evidence is shown when looking at education levels, income and health issues. Some believe we live in a postracial society and that speaking of race only perpetuates problems. This color blind outlook is based on a merit system of rewards and penalties which rarely benefits people of color. The U.S is not a postracial society even after the election of a black president and a growing minority population.

Here's an interesting comic dealing with this idea: http://www.gradientlair.com/post/102200016923/white-privilege-cartoon

One criticism I have heard of the focus on race in the US recently is that we do not talk about class enough. Maybe this is true, but of course like this part of the article suggests race and class are tied together in a lot of ways.

It is interesting how that was not that long ago. I wonder if there has been a lot more research done on the topic.

Again, another example of the importance of Spanish in the US and therefore in technical communication in the US.

This would be an interesting read, because as a country we often forget that half of the US was originally a part of Mexico and there are still ties in those states to the country (if only in the names, e.g. New Mexico) so it is worrying to hear about them erasing this past and replacing it with WEA culture.

This ties into what I wrote earlier that the US has the second biggest number of Spanish speakers out of all the countries in the world. In general in the US we should opt to have technical documentation available in different languages, however in my opinion due to the large presence of Spanish in the US we should definitely have more technical communication in Spanish and try to embrace the language more as a culture and as part of our identity as a nation.

I like how this (short) comic explains white privilege: http://everydayfeminism.com/2014/09/white-privilege-explained/ Also, if you are interested in feminism/social justice this is a really neat site.

-I want to preface this by noting that not all Hispanic people in the US can speak Spanish.- Anyway, this is important because at least according to the study mentioned in this CNN article: http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/01/us/spanish-speakers-united-states-spain/ the US has the second highest population of Spanish speakers in the world, second only to Mexico. Meaning there are more people that speak Spanish in the US than in Spain.

This is important because a lot of people confuse being Hispanic with being a race, when it is really an ethnicity (at least it is considered so in the US). And since being Hispanic is an ethnicity and being white is a race, it is possible to be a white Hispanic. Spanish-speaking countries are extremely diverse (for a large part consisting of black, white,indigenous and multiracial populations). So it'd be interesting to see how the race and ethnicity questions affect census findings.I also would like to know what they mean by double occupancy.

according to Wikipedia a monograph is "a specialist work of writing (in contrast to reference works)[1] on a single subject or an aspect of a subject, usually by a single author."

The discussion of race in this article reminds of a similar discussion I have had in my race and ethnic relations class, where we talk about race as a social construct, that was created to continue to marginalize minorities. I believe race is important in technical communication because it continues to add on to the cultural and social aspects of tech writing, meaning that it brings about diversity.

The idea of colorblindness, not just in tech communication but in general, in my opinion, makes the false assumption that race does not exist, and it tries to deny the issues that actually arise about race and racism.

This supports my earlier claim about how race is a social construct and if we continue to have a color-blind mentality, we deny that racism exist and avoid topics of race and culture, which in the end could turn out to be insightful for the world of tech communication because there is the diversity factor that we always want to include

I think this is the most important point of this article. We need to respect the technical achievements of the " private sphere" which has mainly been confined to women, and by doing that we will realize that women have played a very important role in the history of technology.

The challenge of our thinking of women and the workplace is one of basic production and not one of technology. The concept of masculine and feminine labor are not the same. Historical writing of technological subjects are mostly of male figures and others with very few women. The biggest obstacle for women to overcome is this definition that has been placed on their work and workplace.

This article is explaining how gender and technology and technical communication is one sided with a preference to males. The values we place on women that are less technical and more production work oriented. Their traditional workplace is not one that is considered scientific. Women have been seen as child bearers historically. Our views of technology is more aligned with a man's world. Because of this women have a difficult time being recognized in the realm of science for their achievements.

I like that they use the word intersection. That word alone makes the statement much more inclusive in my opinion.

I like that this paragraph mentions how what is considered "significant" is often tied to what makes money. I think it ties problems with materialism in our culture. Also of course if money equals power and women get paid less than men than it follows that women have less power.Here's an article on the gender pay gap that goes into it in a lot of interesting detail: http://www.aauw.org/research/the-simple-truth-about-the-gender-pay-gap/

This is interesting because I heard somewhere before that there are more female technical writers than male technical writers. The most support for this claim I could find was the abstract from this article: http://jbt.sagepub.com/content/7/3/312.abstract So I think articles like this one are really important, because just because there may be more women in a field does not mean they do not still get disenfranchised in the field. For example, I like that this article talks about the ways that women have been ignored in the history of technical communication and technology in general.

I love this, because we as a society still sometimes devalue work done in the private sphere (when compared to the public sphere), like cooking and cleaning when in reality that work is vital and not easy.

Actually i just learned about her! She was featured on the front page of a google doodle. It is sad that I had to learn about her by chance this late in life. I think this is proof that we do not learn about enough famous women in technology in school.

I think this statement ignores the fact that women have also been denied access to a lot of these areas as well. For example, a lot of female writers have used male pen names so people would not know they were women. Here's an article that talks about this a little bit: http://mashable.com/2015/03/01/female-authors-pen-names/#hjZgir4d8kqk

interesting. I still remember being taught in elementary school that Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin. I looked up Catherine Green: Here's an article if you want to know more about her involvement with the invention of the cotton gin: http://www.findingdulcinea.com/features/profiles/l/catharine-littlefield-greene.html

I never noticed that and I love it as a funny way to segue into sexism in history.

I love the name of this article, also I think this will tie in to when the author goes over cultural blinders, defining what counts as technical writing will probably be one of them. Perhaps for a long time sewing manuals might not have been considered " technical" because sewing was associated with women.

Our cultural views of technology and women exclude them from being part of the story of technology. These views do not identify women as inventors or designers. It also understates women's skills in all different fields of technology. Traditional women's work is defined as "not technological". Women who have excelled in a traditional workplace have difficulty being recognized for their work in relation to technology. Cook book authors being an example of this.

Gender and technological competence has always been seen as a masculine trait when defining the two genders. This gender division has placed women in a non technical role. They are seen as users of machines but not as innovators, the sewing machine being an example of this. Men are more defined as makers, repairers and designers. This puts women in an inferior role in the workplace because of the non technical activities of the work at hand.

The history of women and technical communications is a difficult one because of the lack of contributions to the field and also because men have excluded or downplayed women's role in technology. Women, like men, have always tried to improve their work processes but we as a society have historically not viewed women as technical innovators.

The history of technical writing has been mostly about great men like Einstein, Galileo, Aristotle, etc. The work of women in history has mostly gone unnoticed by historians. The significance of technical writing falls within two spheres, the public (allocated to men) and the private (allocated to women). Technical writings are more aligned with the public sphere as opposed to the private.

The definition of modern technical writings must first be defined and what constitutes these writings. There are no guidelines for these writings but it is understood that there are two important key points to this definition. 1) A subject matter or function about technology. 2) Technical writing is associated with the work and workplace. These terms about technology, work and workplace are gender neutral terms. Articles from the past that address technical writing and women are very scarce.

This article raises the point that most of the history on technology is written by men. The practice of writing is considered to be for men because of the predetermined definition of women's role with technology. There are not many female historians so this has led to "one sided" or male dominated points of view.

These "cultural blinders" have made it harder for women to be seen as a prominent force in the area of technology as opposed to their male counterparts. Women have an attached defenition to their controbution in regards to production of technology. The author offers a definition of this gender difference that can hopefully be used for the future. She also investigates problems within this definition of gender and technology in the workplace.

Our recorded history is more focused on men when it comes to fields of science, technical writing and users and inventors of technology. History tells us that these fields are predominately male centered and the role of women is more restricted to the home and being mothers and bearing children. In almost no culture are these roles seen as male centered with the male responsible for child care. This creates a "locking in" effect that impacts women and their role in society. Because of these roles there has been less opportunities for to experiment with new ideas and tools.

We start to move from the idea that women's place is in the kitchen and taking care of children to women actually being users of technology. This relates to the Pimental article, because women like minorities are often left out of the technical world because of the lack of research.

So far we have only looked at the definition of tech communication, as a type of communication that is lingusitic, visual, auditory, etc., with having the end users needs as the end goal. Technical writing is, at the end of the day, about work and workplace, two things that women have been excluded from which is another reason why women have been absent in the world of technical writing.

We should acknowledge the fact that technology, work and work place are not gender neutral terms because for so long it has excluded women.