An assortment of reactions I noted while reading for class tomorrow:

“*dusts hands* Well, our work here is done. Composition instructors have been dealing with IP issues, virtual play, trolls, etc., for years.”
“How can people still argue that they don’t use ‘technology’ (i.e. digital technologies) in the classroom (if they have access and institutional support/incentive)?”
“How can people still not accept digital scholarship/scholarship on digital things as significant in 2015?(!)”

“How have we not figured out how to stop trolls?…”

On the whole, I felt like the readings for this week could easily replace a few keywords and still probably gather attention at CCCC’s. Identifying individual contributions to collaborative projects is still as much an issue today as it was for Kolko; trolls might even be more of an issue today than they were for Daisley; and text-based interfaces are still challenging to understand. Part of me was left wondering, what’s left? Or more so, why haven’t things changed more? That said, I wish there were more emphasis in current scholarship on digital work to point back to some of these early pieces, as I was frankly unaware that these conversations ever happened (aside from knowing that MOOs were similar to MOOCs, but way earlier).

One point that did stand out as different today however, was on 113 in Daisley. She mentions her students’ preoccupation with “rumors about a race riot” on campus, but it seems likely that today most students would have access to some sort of “eye witness” account, whether it was a video, pictures, or somebody live Tweeting the events. It seems such access would quell similar rumors, or at least challenge dominant narratives (maybe I’m being overly optimistic here). Any thoughts on this?