A Million Penguins

A Million Penguins is an experiment in creativity and community – it will only work if we work as a community and leave our egos at the door, next to the coat-rack. Above all, remember always that all contributions may be edited, altered or removed by other contributors. Below are a few guidelines which we hope will make this collaborative exercise as harmonious as possible – but treating other users and their writing with respect will be key to producing a successful wikinovel.

Ethical Guidelines, A Million Penguins

This is one of those ideas that are more interesting as ideas than as actual practices. I just don’t have the time or the energy to work up all that enthusiasm. It’s also much less original than it seems– fan fiction has been doing similar things for decades. It’s more stunt than experiment, more marketing campaign than viral idea.

I think the most interesting section is the Ethics page, where the editors (for lack of a better word) twisted themselves into relativistic knots trying to be as tolerant as possible. “Remember that contributors to the wikinovel may come from different cultures and countries,” they tell us, ‘and might express different views or perspectives – be respectful of these differences.”

So far so good. “Including the idea,” they continue, “that other people may not be respectful of differences. Be respectful of disrespect, except inasmuch as you cannot be, in your difference.” Derrida laughs is his grave every time he hears that passage. There are some interesting typos too.

“Value consensus and discussion.” The editors say. “Do not upload copyrighted material or material that you have not personally created yourselfs.” Is that an inadvertent ‘s’ or is this the new Wiki-pronoun for the collective writerly ‘you’? There’s a similar phenomena a bit further on, as the authors again warn against egotism.

“A Million Penguins is not a forum for submission of entire novels or short stories – Penguin are not doing this to find new talent.” In some strange fashion the singular Penguin, the book publisher, has grown into the plural Penguin, encompassing all of us, one supposes. There’s a certain irony to the wisdom of this crowd.

Being Christian

Let’s be clear here: The church has been the primary source of the oppressions that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people have experienced through out their lives. Just as Scripture was used to justify slavery as recently as 150 years ago, just as Scripture was used to keep women out of leadership positions in the church . . . Scripture was used to fight both of those movements of the spirit. And so, indeed, the Church has been the source of most of the pain that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people have experienced. And what we try to say to the Human Rights Campaign and others is, if the church is the cause of this oppression it needs to be church people who undo this oppression, and that is what we are trying to do here.

Let’s also be clear that the religious right, both within our church and in other churches, are still proclaiming those kinds of oppressive things that are causing our children to grow up doubting whether indeed they are beloved by God or are an abomination. . . . Only religious people can undo that oppression and that is indeed what we along with the Human Rights Campaign are trying to do in this day and time.

Bishop V. Gene Robinson, June 14, 2006, at the 75th Episcopal General Convention

I’m not sure why, but my partner’s daughter has decided that she’s an atheist and it drives some of her Christian classmates up the wall. I admire her tenacity but I worry that the ongoing struggle will convince her that no good can ever come of faith. One day I want to take her to see Bishop Robinson.

Top Intellectual Property Developments of 2007 for Scholars of Composition, Rhetoric, and Communication

Introduction

Clancy Ratliff, University of Louisiana at Lafayette
Co-Chair, 2008 CCCC Intellectual Property Caucus

The year 2007 carried quite a few key developments for those who follow issues and debates related to copyright and intellectual property. For the third year running, then, the CCCC Intellectual Property Committee is pleased to publish this annual report in the service of our first goal, to “keep the CCCC and NCTE memberships informed about intellectual property developments, through reports in the CCCC newsletter and in other NCTE and CCCC forums.”

Top Intellectual Property Developments of 2007 for Scholars of Composition, Rhetoric, and Communication

They don’t make it too easy, but this series of reports is worth reading, if nothing else because they illustrate the general disarray that dominates intellectual property rights. It’s a shift, of course, echoed in broader shifts over ownership underwritten by the mass availability of cheap computers.

The rhetoric of the titles tell the story. A report by Traci A. Zimmnerman, for example, is called “McLean Students File Suit Against Turinin.com: Useful Tool or Instrument of Tryanny.” Jeff Gain’s “Bosh v. Ball-Knell: Faculty May Have Lost Control Over Their Teaching Materials” also suggests serious trouble, at the very least.

“The Importance of Understanding and Utilizing Fair Use in Educational Contexts: A Study on Media Literacy and Copyright Confusion,” (Martine Courant Rife) and “Recut, Reframe, Recycle: Quoting Copyrighted Material in User-Generated Video” (Laurie Cubbison) hint at the shifting ground on which property rights now stand.

And finally, “One Laptop Per Child Program Threatens Dominance of Intel and Microsoft,” (Kim Dian Gaine) and “The National Institutes of Health Open Access Mandate: Public Access for Public Funding,” (Clancy Ratliff) suggest the ongoing vitality of programs that directly challenge the old property paradigms.