Netiquette

From my viewpoint, here are some of the best rules, "netiquette" guidelines, for corresponding via email.

1.  Be considerate of other's time and sensitivities. 

2.  Do not use inflammatory language. 

3.  Take the time to demonstrate respect by spelling the email recipient's name correctly and addressing them correctly.

4.  Do not use abbreviations or acronyms that have the potential to be misunderstood by the reader.

5.  Edit and revise before hitting send.  Always work on the assumption that anything put into cyberspace will be permanent.

6.  Do not simply forward 'interesting' emails to recipients without a personal note stating why the recipient might enjoy the email.

7.  Remember that the person you are emailing is human.  Email from the perspective that you are speaking face-to-face.  Do not forget that within an email, there is no non-verbal communication.

8.  Read the email aloud to ensure that it sticks to the tone and purpose you intend. 

Reaction to "Priced to Sell," by Malcolm Gladwell

In the book review of Chris Anderson’s book, Free: The Future of a Radical Price, written by Malcolm Gladwell in The New Yorker, more questions than answers are brought to light. And so goes for my reaction.

A big question to be asked is, what is the value of intellect and ideas? A favorite quote of mine goes like this: “Poor minds discuss people, average minds discuss events, but great minds talk about ideas.” So if it is to be exalted when someone presents an idea, why in the world are we making this free? Should there not be a cost? Have we somewhere along the line confused priceless with free?

A noteworthy thing within Anderson’s book is the fact that it IS a book in the first place. That, and the price is $26.99. I find it ironic that a person who is encouraging a shift in mindset from scarcity to abundance in the digital age is asking quite a pretty penny for a book! Anderson argues that you can try to deter this “free” mindset with laws and regulations, but that eventually the economic gravity will win. So does this mean that eventually, we should all work for free? Going on this principle, then, why did he not write his book for free? Oh, the incongruence and hypocrisy.

This brings to mind a question of motivation. If people are to work for free, will they work as hard? Should all work be based upon volunteerism? What are the non-monetary rewards, and motivations, for this type of work? This calls to mind what someone’s time is worth. How could we make a living? Would we all just live on rations? Anderson addresses this issue by calling into play the idea of making money “around” ideas, such as Google making money off of advertising. How would a writer, or any type of artist really, make money around their work, when their work is in their ideas?

There are myriad questions that this essay brings to mind, but paramount to these questions is, who does information belong to? Does the original bearer of the information have rights? Anderson’s idea that “information wants to be free” seems incredulous in that information is not a conscious entity seeking release. I particularly responded to Gladwell’s snippet of response in asking why a corporation’s self-interested motivations for profit are being elevated to a philosophical principle. I want to know the same thing. To me, this seems like moral relativism in the highest, since the justification for a company’s bad behavior is being brought to a level of assigning conscious awareness to ideas that are a human being’s rightful property. By taking the human being who originated the idea out of the equation, and just labeling it information, he makes it seem more acceptable to disavow recognition for that person. All sorts of scary things start happening when we start dehumanizing.

Anderson encourages us to go from a scarcity mindset to an abundance mindset. He bases this on the idea that there are four sectors in which to think about “Free:” technological, (digital infrastructure is often free), psychological (consumers love free), procedural (free means never having to make a judgment), and commercial (the market created can make a lot of money). Are these four sectors the only ones to worry about? There are too many facets to even list here, much less explain. What about our economy? We clearly are not living in an abundant economy right now, and times are tough for everyone. Abundance mindsets are microcosmic in nature—not considering the whole picture. Digitally and technologically, things might be abundant, but this is not true in other ways, not even mathematically in most cases. We live on a finite planet, with limited resources. There is no “abundance” principle. This goes against the most fundamental economic principle of supply and demand. There is always a balance to be obtained, and very infrequently a surplus. Factor in our overpopulation problem globally, and there is even less of an “abundance mindset.”

This brings to mind the value we place on original thought and ideas, even intellect. In a recent discussion with an English professor friend in another state, she brought to mind how many professors are forced to piecemeal their wages from various part-time jobs, yet expected to sustain themselves on their love of teaching alone. Then they are asked to turn around and promote, to their students, the value of original thinking and independent intellect. It is all terribly sad. I am gambling on the hope that my college education will impart knowledge and skills that are marketable. But if my knowledge and skills are offered for free, is my marketability, and more specifically, profitability, just a pipe dream? I’d say so. It’s a terrifying time to be looking for a career.

This essay also got me to thinking about an interesting psychological idea. If there is psychology to free, then there must be psychology to expensive. My reclamation grocery store, called Markdown Market, which I closed about a year ago, was very very cheap to shop at, but people often preferred the same products for more money at competing stores. When I inquired about this, many of them responded that in having food stamp benefits, it didn’t matter if they spent more money, because their food was free. Do people inherently, in some psychological, behavioral fashion, value what costs more over what costs less? Do they believe that paying more for something makes it inherently better in some manner? Or do they just not care because it’s free? It’s an intriguing concept, yet to me, a very ignorant one. Anderson’s idea that there are two markets—zero and all other prices—seems absurd to me at best, but potentially correct at worst. I certainly hope that in all this promotion of free ideas, we are getting some educated ones: if you can pay less for something, do it, but do not take just because something’s free. There is ALWAYS a cost somewhere.

Chapter 3-4 Rhetorical Precis

CHAPTER 3

In chapter three of Technical Communication, (2012) Mike Markel asserts that in order to write technical documents effectively, five stages of writing must be employed:  planning, drafting, revising, editing, and proofreading.  Planning involves analyzing audience and purpose, drafting is the first attempt to get words on paper, revising often involves the careful eye of both yourself and others, editing is the process of checking the draft to improve punctuation and grammar, and proofreading is done to make sure the draft says what is intended.  Markel’s purpose in underscoring these techniques was not to provide a step by step writing process, but to point out that writing is always done on a continuum, in order to illustrate that any of the steps can and will be revisited multiple times before a document is complete.  The intended audience is the beginning technical writer, as evidenced by the formal, professional tone and content of the chapter.  

CHAPTER 4

Mike Markel, in chapter four of his textbook Technical Communication, (2012) claims that every document demands collaboration of one form or another.  Within this chapter, he provides tools for effective collaboration, including managing projects, conducting meetings, and using social media and other electronic tools.  Markel’s purpose in this chapter is to showcase the varied ways that collaboration is used, in order to prepare students and working professionals to be effective teammates.  The intended audience is beginning technical writers, be they students or emerging professionals, as evidenced by the breadth and diversity of subject matter covered within the chapter. 

 

My Personal Code of Writerly Conduct

• Always strive for fairness and equality in interactions with others, which includes all types of communication.
• Achieve balance in writing and communication by always considering multiple perspectives.
• Aim for meaning in writing, and avoid ambiguities.  
• Implement the Golden Rule.  Would I want to be communicated with in this fashion?
• Do not be afraid to be honest, but take great strides in diplomacy within honesty's expression.