F/OSS and Writing II: The Open Source Writing Process
The open source model also provides a figurative construct, a model for writing in the composition class. Taylor and Riley (2005) write that, The Open Source model offers an alternative to the usual assembly line process for collaborative work; it emphasizes the value of writing, in turn emphasizing the wrongs of plagiarism and the need for proper citation.
Taylor and Riley go on to argue that the open source model can influence both the product and the process. Open source emphasizes the value of code in that code is strictly about solving problems, not making a profit. Anyone can participate in the open source model, whether he or she is a coder or not, simply by suggesting changes to the program and challenging coders to figure out the solution. Open source emphasizes the wrongs of plagiarism and the need for citation by its focus on the community aspect of building software; for one person to take any undue credit for the works of many people would be unethical and would violate the idea of the open source movement. Because they are working in a community of programmers, open source programmers need even more to give credit where credit is due.
The potential in applying the open source model to writing classes is nearly limitless. Many writing classes already have some aspects of this model in place, such as feedback from teachers and peers and a top-down approach to plagiarism—in other words, strict warnings not to plagiarize. If simply threatening to flunk any student who plagiarized was a foolproof method, then instances of plagiarism should have dropped dramatically once it became a problem. However, how many students who are caught plagiarizing probably figured they would flunk the class anyway? In the open source model, cheating adversely affects the entire class by undermining the sense that students are participating in a community of writers; therefore, members of such a class might be more apt to handle plagiarism internally by reporting incidents to the professor or recommending that plagiarism be corrected before final papers are submitted.
To analyze how the open source model would work in composition, we must address two issues. First, how is the open source model unique? Second, how can a construct having to do with programming be adapted to writing? In other words, what are the parallels between writing and coding, if any? Taylor and Riley address the first point by arguing that the open source model is unique for the extent to which it opens up to larger communities; in fact, they argue that this is an essential piece of open source composition classrooms. Connecting to larger communities, according to Taylor and Riley, gives students a larger group for peer review
and a base of 'users' to test projects.
Many classrooms already feature some type of peer review, from workshop to small group discussion; Taylor and Riley argue that the community should be even larger, and preferably outside of the classroom. They give examples such as University of Florida composition students writing for the Florida Networked Web Environment (NWE) and assignments that culminate in Web sites for local non-profit agencies. On the surface, this approach sounds like service learning, but Taylor and Riley argue that it goes deeper: Open Source projects do not necessarily equate to 'community service' but instead may reflect a better understanding of the benefits of shared research.
In other words, the key difference is that the open source writing project is one that can be ongoing and repeated later, rather than an experience that begins and ends with a student or group of students. It is not a temporary alliance, but a lasting partnership.
Taylor and Riley compare the assembly line model of group work in a writing class to the "garage band" model. In assembly line work, they argue, students divide a task into sections over which they claim full sovereignty, with each student making a particular section his or her own domain. By the end of the project, each student has mastered his or her section, and the combination of these sections forms a single work. Greg Ulmer suggests the garage band model as an alternative. According to Taylor and Riley, the garage band metaphor "allows each member to create an individual part that operates within the overall project, but that may express different ideas and methods." This metaphor is apt when considering how garage bands operate in their original context. Participants sit around with their instruments, trying out different aspects of their style to see how it stands out from the whole as well as how it blends in. While a section of work produced under the assembly line model is intended to fit into the whole, so that the author's identity is lost in the name of cohesion, work produced under the garage band model fits both in and out of the whole, expressing the identity of the group and the individual authors at the same time. The garage band model is an open source approach for this reason: Although the work produced is still a group effort, the individual efforts involved are transparent in the process and everyone can see how each person in the group contributed to the whole.
Finally, the open source model is unique for engendering the idea of lifelong learning that can induce students to engage topics well after they may otherwise have abandoned them. Open source writing rejects the notion that any assignment is fully done,
instead emphasizing a doctrine of constant revision of output and revisiting of ideas that is a pillar of lifelong learning. This idea could see fruition in a portfolio-based class, where papers are not submitted for a grade and then shoved into a folder for the rest of the semester, but instead are constantly revised, revisited, and then turned in at the end of the semester. In a way, each student's portfolio might represent his or her own garage band: The assignments the student turns in as part of the portfolio reflect individual efforts as well as overarching themes and concepts the student is developing in both personal and professional approaches.
Previous: F/OSS and Writing I: Literal Impact Next: F/OSS and Writing III: Coding as Writing