Wicked Wiki and the Art of Arguments

First, let me just say that I am not computer illiterate. I've been teaching college online for quite a while now using Choices, Blackboard, Pearson CompLab, ANGEL, etc. Yet, for whatever reason, the wicked wiki of the west here kicks my butt every time. It's structure and dialogue is just so random and different than anything else, I can't figure it out. I hate it worse than black licorice. I'm told that the wiki is preferable to these other class hosting forms because it is less masculine and more democratic, but it seems to be to be pure anarchy. I just needed to share that.


Kastely's article was a keeper even if he does needlessly complicate and convolute Antigone a little bit to serve his points. Those points are so good, it's worth the ride. I could see myself in Kastely's description in my early days as a MA TA, teaching the arguments in perhaps an old-fashioned way. Maybe; maybe not. You figure out what you think. Then, you back it up with facts. Lastly, you try to convince your reader that you are correct. This would be the domination model Kastely talks about: "the assumption that one argued because the other party either was ignorant of the truth or lacked some information relevant for understanding the force of the present claim" and needed to be set straight.

I learned pretty quickly that this model is closed minded and doesn't take in to account the growth of the writer during the process. Also, it forgets the "otherness" in the context of a world larger than the mind of the writer. So, I began including a presentation in my argumentation process. A respectful session of listening with question and answer, which often includes arguments with both sides of the issue being presented adds to the writers' quality of arguments. Kastely mentions this: "When listening or attending to the other is crucial to argument, the goal of argument moves from justifying claims to discovering conversations that encourage two apparently contradictory projects." Lastly, although it doesn't seem like a part of the writing process, I insist that participants speak, ask, voice in class. If they don't, I call on them. I consider it integral to the argument process because if they don't speak, others cannot listen.