User:Cdsj0497/sandbox

Week 3: Choosing Possible Topics
Article 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netflix - Netflix

After reviewing the Netflix Wikipedia article and reading the Talk page I realized that the article lacked elaboration on how it developed into an internet streaming database and what that means for it's audience. In particular, before the era of Netflix the public either saw films in the theater or rented them from corporations such as Blockbuster. The ability to have thousands and shows at your finger tip can be slightly overwhelming. Nonetheless, most people who have streaming services such as Netflix and Hulu are constantly fed content that fits their niche precisely. I am interested in the rhetorical strategies that are used by Netflix such a predicting content a user would prefer. I also think it would be interesting to research the ways in which companies like Netflix attempt to make their apps easy to navigate. This source of consumer strategy is an aspect that I believe couldn't be researched within traditional rhetoric.

Article 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandora_Radio - Pandora

Similar to how Netflix streams movies and shows, Pandora stream music. I am interested here in the use of advertisement as a mean of rhetoric. For those who don't have Pandora Premium (me) you have to listen to ads every so often between songs. No matter where I am listening to Pandora it seems like the advertisements reflect the businesses within that era or that are personal to my demographic. I wonder if this is due to the songs I listen to, etc. I also am interested in the contrast of traditional radio as an antecedent to Pandora. To what extent is there still a content bubble since users are given the choice to what they want to listen to. What rhetorical strategies are employed by the Pandora software to keep users engaged?

Potential Sources: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S8755461509000401

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/6064988/?part=1

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/intellect/rj/2008/00000005/F0020002/art00003

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1461444809342738

Week 4: Drafting Your Article
Notes for Improvement: · The article included an in-depth on the origins of the term. · I think the "A New Rhetorical Theory" Section can be cleaned up a little. The article should be easy to understand for a novice. ·The article lacks examples of procedural rhetoric that those who are not gamers would come across. While the term originated through the analysis of video games, I think it can include other interfaces such as Google, Amazon, and Netflix to name few. ·Another area of improvement would be the application of procedural rhetoric depending on culture. Considering Bogost's exploration within his book, he asserts that procedural rhetoric makes claims of humans experiences. If different cultures have different experiences how do authors or these games and interfaces craft claims that all could relate to? I think culture should be discussed more. We also should expand the article to talk about theory and application of procedural rhetoric in non-gaming contexts, as well as expand what is already there beyond the Bogost source. Finally, we should consider writing a section on impactful or famous procedural rhetoric that exists today, such as popular media, etc, that we can use to further explain the applications/ intricacies of the theory.

Potential Sources: 1. https://smartech.gatech.edu/handle/1853/33915

2. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1555412013496891

3. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/6064988/

4. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1875952110000200

5. https://books.google.com/books? hl=en&lr=&id=52PkBQAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA277&dq=procedural+rhetoric+and+netflix&ots=GxEovYtKS8&sig=KnIeeYoj_H7dH-RvcpRZzoDE9kI#v=onepage&q=netflix&f=false

6. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0363811114001830

7. https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1836136

8. https://search.proquest.com/docview/1986814804

9. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.928.2321&rep=rep1&type=pdf

10. http://www.diva-portal.se/smash/get/diva2:861173/FULLTEXT01.pdf

Leads Section Draft:

Procedural rhetoric or simulation rhetoric is a rhetorical concept that explains how people learn through the authorship of rules and processes. The theory argues that games can make strong claims about how the world works—not simply through words or visuals but through the processes they embody and models they construct (current lead section). The term was first coined by Ian Bogost in his 2007 book Persuasive Games: The Expressive Power of Videogames.

Bogost is a professor in the School of Literature, Media, and Communication and in Interactive Computing in the College of Computing at the Georgia Institute of Technology, where he is the Ivan Allen College of Liberal Arts Distinguished Chair in Media Studies (from Ian Bogost Wiki page).

The theory argues that games make strong claims about how the world works by the processes they embody. Procedural rhetoric analyzes the art of persuasion by rule based representations and interactions rather than spoken or written word. Procedural rhetoric focuses on how game-makers craft laws and rules within a game to convey a particular ideology.

Week 5: Article Drafting: [Procedural Rhetoric]
Leads Section Draft:

Procedural rhetoric or simulation rhetoric is a rhetorical concept that explains how people learn through the authorship of rules and processes. The theory argues that games can make strong claims about how the world works—not simply through words or visuals but through the processes they embody and models they construct (current lead section). The term was first coined by Ian Bogost in his 2007 book Persuasive Games: The Expressive Power of Videogames.

Bogost is a professor in the School of Literature, Media, and Communication and in Interactive Computing in the College of Computing at the Georgia Institute of Technology, where he is the Ivan Allen College of Liberal Arts Distinguished Chair in Media Studies (from Ian Bogost Wiki page).

The theory argues that games make strong claims about how the world works by the processes they embody. Procedural rhetoric analyzes the art of persuasion by rule based representations and interactions rather than spoken or written word. Procedural rhetoric focuses on how gamemakers craft laws and rules within a game to convey a particular ideology.

''Procedural rhetoric or simulation rhetoric is a rhetorical concept that examines the expression of rhetoric through interactive rules and systems. This can include everyday interactive systems such as the internet and operating systems, as well as systems designed for play such as videogames and other interactive media. The theory argues that interactive systems can make strong claims about how the world works—not simply through words or visuals but through the processes they embody and models they construct.'' Wrixan (talk) 22:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Rhetoric of Gaming
Rhetoric is the art of discourse wherein a writer or speaker strives to inform, persuade or motivate particular audiences in specific situations (site Rhetoric Wikipedia article). Procedural rhetoric focuses on the composition of gameplay, more specifically how simulation games (i.e. video and computer games) are constructed to make claims about how the world should work (Bogost, 2007).

James Gee, Professor at University of Wisconsin - Madison outlined the importance of video games for learning in his essay Why Video Games are Good For Learning, Gee describes commercial games as “worlds in which variables interact through time” (http://www.academiccolab.org/resources/documents/MacArthur.pdf). Game-makers compose video games with a series of predetermined rules and processes that the play must follow in order to win. The player must learn the rules of the virtual world and deduce what is possible and impossible in order to solve problems and carry out the ultimate goal of winning. The requirement of learning the rules of video games is the baseline of the procedural rhetoric theory.

Researchers Jens Seiffert and and Howard Nothhaft found that computer games are powerful persuasive tools that act as a manipulating force for society (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0363811114001830). One study conducted in 2009 found that military computer games transfer to the players understanding of warfare. In particular, the logic of the game revealed by the procedural and structural rules guided players with a deeper comprehension of the rules of warfare and tactics. Through the processes and rules of a simulation, gamemakers have the ability to persuade players to view the world according to the procedures of a particular game. While contemporary rhetorics focuses on discourse as the art of persuasion, procedural rhetorics focuses on the gaming system, processes, rules, and procedures as a mean to persuade the audience, that being players.

Peer Review (Landon Wilson, 24 February 2018)
This is a really well detailed draft, but there are minor revisions to be made, particularly concerning the current citations (the first sentence, the last sentence, the third paragraph). There are also parts of the draft that seem rushed or like the author is attempting to squeeze as much information as possible into a space that is not large enough for so much information. In other words, "too much too fast." Can you slow it down a little bit? I think coming at this draft with the assumption that your audience does not know anything about procedural rhetoric would help. For example, in paragraph two, the author writes, "Gamemakers compose video games with a series of predetermined rules..." What are these rules? Why are they predetermined? How does this vary from game to game? In paragraph three, what are the ethical implications, particularly as it relates to the military and warfare? Is this something that will also be included in your edits to the current article? Finally, the last thing I would say about this draft, is that each paragraph seems to center back to the same idea (which isn't necessarily bad); in doing this, the author is offering a handful of different aspects of procedural rhetoric, which is good, but there seems to lack any clear reason as to why we keep circling back to this idea. Can these ideas/definitions be better infused throughout?

Peer Review: David Rosenstein
Hi! I think Landon's review above is really substantial and valid. Something that I picked up on when reading your well-written draft was its heavy emphasis on video games. While procedural rhetoric often deals with the rules and concepts of a simulation and video games are fascinating to talk about, it's important to balance the lead section, one that's supposed to introduce the entire body of the article, with a balanced voice. For example, I know it was mentioned in your original suggestions but I would love to see some more content on the "other interfaces such as Google, Amazon, and Netflix..." Perhaps this might be a good section to introduce Ferrara's work? This might add value and other context. Additionally, the final paragraph's sentence, "Through the processes and rules of a simulation, gamemakers have the ability to persuade players to view the world" seems to be a reoccurring theme and might be redundant to reiterate. Umdtourguide (talk) 03:06, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review: Vanna Chung
As someone who has never heard of procedural rhetoric, I believe that your draft hit the major points of what I was asking. You gave me the definition of what procedural rhetoric is and you also gave me an example of how procedural rhetoric is carried out. After you answered these two questions, I found myself asking even more questions that I believe you could answer. What if the game is not authentic? How does what happen in the virtual world carry over to the real world? If I am not seeking to learn about military tactics, would I still retain the knowledge if I were to play a military game? Is it any game that has rules? Or is it a specific type of game? I would also look into how surgeons who play video games also transfer over the knowledge to the real world in some instances. I believe that some surgeons who have to play very meticulous games gain more technical skills when doing their job. Overall, I believe that you know your major points. It is just a matter of expanding these points.

Peer Review: Nate Tsegaw
From what I have read you seem to have a wonderful start. Your draft as it is tells me that you are forming the foundation of your Wikipedia article effectively. This is a topic that interests me greatly as someone who loves video games and I cannot wait to read your article when it is finished. In regard to things that can be improved, it mostly is centered around the diversity of content and ideas that you present. While the field of procedural rhetoric is very new, I wonder if there exists a larger breadth of knowledge or opinions on the topic. Some possible ideas to tackle as you move on with your article could include: whether people disagree that procedural rhetoric is valid, what the earlier example were like, how it differs from a traditional game (irl), or even what methods do creators use to strengthen the impact of their works? Overall, great start to the article, and I cant wait to read it as it gradually goes more in depth into your topic.Ntsegaw (talk) 09:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)