Comments as Writing

My course, Learning from YouTube, advertises that all class assignments take the shape of YouTube videos or comments, hence pushing and challenging both the constraints of web 2.0’s platforms for higher learning, while at the same time, asking higher learning to take better account of the ways, places, and forms where learning occurs in 2012. I have spent some time and energy codifying the ways my students and I began to “write” academically on YouTube. And perhaps it comes as no surprise that I evaded similar thinking in relation to our work at commenting, given how paltry is this function and its related culture.

Of course, my steadfast collaborators have been thinking about commenting all along:

In class yesterday, we began to build on this part of the project, asking ourselves to codify our commenting practices as academic writing. These terms serve as our beginning:

• Meta: writing that evidences in its form its analysis of YouTube. These self-reflexive forms include:
• • Rant: writing that rages
  • Spam: writing that sells
  • ADD: writing that jumps, moves, distracts, disconnects
  • Reiterative: writing that re-cuts
• Social: writing that takes into account its public, interactive position
• Personal: writing that takes into account the experiences, position and opinions of its isolated author
• Convergence: writing that attempts to translate academic style, lingo, or analysis to the Internet
• Efficient: writing that attempts to relay information with ease
• Tweet: writing that must be short
• Live: writing that strives to be current