Talk:Digital rhetoric

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Inggrit olivin, Zeeshan Faiez.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aashkavarma, MiguelAngelFimbres.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Caitlindutch, Mckenziedunleavy.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 February 2019 and 6 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ImaniM489j.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2019 and 13 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Isabella Pham. Peer reviewers: Khamelia H., Cquinn1112, Beck1212.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2021 and 14 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Qwertygirl123. Peer reviewers: Qwertygirl123, Annisogood.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

I'm thinking we should take out the state names in the sentence (first paragraph) "Courses on eRhetoric are currently being taught at the university-level in California, Minnesota, Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio," and just end it after “university level.” Most major universities now offer some version of eRhetoric or writing technologies courses. --Crickrhet (talk) 01:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree, so I took care of it.Jacobwc (talk) 14:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe in the history section it would not hurt to add more on the concepts of rhetoric. Perhaps simply a link to the rhetoric page in which gives the reader more understand of Aristotle and his concepts of pathos, logos, and ethos. If the reader understands these concepts they can better understand the concept of digital rhetoric and will be able to use it more effectively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smcmanus56 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Article name

Hi, I wonder if Digital rhetoric might be a stronger name for this article. See: WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 01:09, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the title should be digital rhetoric. I found it as eRhetoric and couldn't figure out how to change it. Jacobwc (talk) 16:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Appropriate name — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan Jiawei Xing (talk • contribs) 01:07, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved by Jacobwc. --BDD (talk) 18:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

ERhetoric → Digital rhetoric – Digital rhetoric is the appropriate term for the area of study. eRhetoric is antiquated and is narrowly situated in the school where the page's creator studied. Digital rhetoric is the operative term in the literature and that term is repeated in texts for more broader audiences https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Digital_Rhetoric Jacobwc (talk) 16:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support: the logical and most appropriate name for this article. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 16:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No need for Cicero here(?)

There doesn't seem to a reason for Cicero to be in this section, other than it is mentioned in the History section. Unless there is a way to revise it to something along the lines of Cicero's Canons of Rhetoric in Digital Contexts, then it's unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crowdsourced (talk • contribs) 18:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Digital rhetoric. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141220105226/http://rhetoric.byu.edu/Encompassing%20Terms/rhetoric.htm to http://rhetoric.byu.edu/encompassing%20terms/rhetoric.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141220105226/http://rhetoric.byu.edu/Encompassing%20Terms/rhetoric.htm to http://rhetoric.byu.edu/encompassing%20terms/rhetoric.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Ryan's Peer Review

testing testing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.80.73.20 (talk) 15:36, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm here testing again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan Jiawei Xing (talk • contribs) 01:09, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Moved content

I've moved this here from the article - it's a section on branding that had no sourcing other than a single source, an accepted Master's thesis that analyzed these specific three companies. It doesn't look like there's anything else to back this up and I can't find anything that cites this thesis as a source to show where it should be highlighted like this. The section also has some issues with OR. I figure that moving it here could be helpful if there's anything to be saved. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:02, 21 June 2018 (UTC) Agree.Ryan Jiawei Xing (talk) 01:13, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Branding

In a 2012, a rhetorical analysis of Coca-Cola, Southwest Airlines, and the U.S. Army, three brands that often successfully employ social media, showed their social media utilized ethos, pathos and logos to promote the brand.

Coca-Cola spends 6.6% of their advertising budget on social media as they use nearly every platform. Their foundation of storytelling has consistently allowed the brand to be a top marketer of all time. Initially, Coca-Cola did not start utilizing social media, however with the use of pathos that marketing is thriving. The famous polar bears are a great way every year to create nostalgia and reminding viewers of the older generations loved the product. Coca-Cola’s Vice President of Global Advertising and Strategy states that Coke’s stories must add substance and value to people’s lives and it has to be the most compelling content possible. This focus on pathos successfully benefits the Coca-Cola brand. Now with these holiday cans, Coca-Cola provides information about the endangered Polar Bears as well as donates proceeds to saving them.

Southwest Airlines started its media campaign in 2006 by starting their own blog. As the first in the field to rely on social media, Southwest employs ethos to engage the community as well as help their customers. Focusing on transparent and timely responses, the airline hopes to be able to create a comfortable atmosphere. Through social media the brand has been able to showcase the personality as well as the core beliefs it stands for. While planning for content is an internal effort of multiple departments, Southwest also reaches out specifically to influencers: travel bloggers, brand fanatics, avid travelers, and importantly, employees who all contribute to the content. This creates a personalized yet authoritative position as these individuals have credibility and support the brand.

U.S Army was the first department of defense branch to come up with an app and regularly participate in social media discourse. The army first utilized social media when media outlets began more aggressively reporting on war efforts. Through this they were able to connect with their audience as well as bring new facts and figures into view. This use of logos allowed individuals to understand both sides of the story as well as draw support for the army. To strengthen the brand the social media is often filled with powerful quotes from leaders, historical moments as well as current mission updates. Using powerful language that strikes responsive chords to the audience, often seen in stories of sacrifice and heroism. This engages future recruits, people with loved ones serving, and anyone else interested in the army.

References

Adding to the definition of digital rhetorics

We are explanding the definition of digital rhetoric to include a more current iteration of what digital rhetoric is, using Douglas Eyman’s Digital Rhetoric book. Krolkm (talk) 16:56, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

== Douglas Eyman’s Digital Rhetoric == Krolkm (talk) 17:13, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

We added an outside link to Eyman’s text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krolkm (talk • contribs) 17:07, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

== Further expand Eyman definition == Krolkm (talk) 17:14, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

We added a few additional elements to the definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krolkm (talk • contribs) 17:09, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Ryan's Testing Section

testing, testing, testing! Ryan Jiawei Xing (talk) 22:24, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Condensing/Organization

I'm wondering if "Mind sharing" and "Crowdsourcing" should perhaps be condensed into the same category as they are very similar concepts and I think they would benefit from being compared side-by-side as simultaneously emerging concepts that have grown with the concept of Digital Rhetoric. BIGLOSERNERD666 (talk) 20:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I began to condense the Politics section by removing dated statistics. This section could be updated more by adding more recent statistics about the use of digital rhetoric in elections.

Unnecessary(?) Info in the Politics Section

Hi,

I was recently editing some of the grammar issues in the Politics section and came across some information that, in my opinion, does not seem to add much to the article. This information is as follows:

"Donald Trump often lacks credible references and uses bombastic language that leads to a heavy emphasis on emotional rhetoric. The majority of his tweets lack a factual basis that can withstand empirical verification.[19] If a position is taken, the language used is vague and abstract. Nearly a quarter of Trump's tweets are Ad Hominem. Mostly utilizing pathos, Trump's Twitter is now a major influencing factor in the world of politics.[19]

Bernie Sanders uses Twitter in response to political events, issues, or facts. 82% of Sanders' tweets state a position.[19] Through these position-based tweets, he also makes claims about "values" belonging to himself, his political party, or Americans as a whole. While these values are not necessarily truths, they can be considered pseudo-truths that make use of both logos and pathos.

Hillary Clinton's tweets are mainly driven by logos, which increases their empirical validation. Her tweets are written with direct references to evidence or concrete situations. However, they can contain ambiguous language that makes the degree of truth less clear. Clinton also lacks emotive language in her messages, sticking only to the facts.

Jeb Bush also employs rhetoric that is mainly fact oriented, with the occasional ambiguity. Bush mostly Tweets with ethos through pseudo-concepts. Unlike other candidates, he makes moral statements. Bush's rhetoric mixes logos, pathos, and ethos."

I was thinking about removing it, but I wanted to get others' opinions on its relevance first. Isabella Pham (talk) 05:50, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

UPDATE: I decided to remove this section, but it will still be here in case anyone disagrees. If anyone really wants to add it back, it came directly after the sentence that says "Steir conducted a study to analyze the different types of rhetoric that took place in social media platforms, such as Facebook and Twitter; during the 2013 election campaign for the German Bundestag, he found that the types of information that politicians share on both platforms varied — Facebook was found to be the preferred medium for campaign rhetoric while Twitter was mostly utilized for rhetoric regarding political debates, infrastructure discussions, and law and order.[19]"

Isabella Pham (talk) 04:57, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Testing

Good!Ryan Jiawei Xing (talk) 21:59, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Testing, testing! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annisogood (talk • contribs) 17:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Additions/Possible Additions

Hi everyone,

I added some sections about Critical Literacy, Tagging, and Interactivity. However, I also think that the article could use some more information about how corporations use digital rhetoric. What do you think? Isabella Pham (talk) 15:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

There are quite a few scholars and digital rhetoricians mentioned in this article, however I noticed that there was an overrepresentation of White, Western minds and views brought to the audience's attention. Is there a way we can diversify the scholarship and highlight some underrepresented figures in digital rhetoric? Aerimars (talk) 22:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

/* Appropriation */ Took out opinion information that was not cited.

Some opinion information was added to the "Appropriation" section and was left uncited. I have deleted the information, but copied it down here for the record: "In the digital age most everything is considered appropriation. Scholars pull their information from a myriad of sources and are constantly redefining terms in order to apply them to the digital world."

If you really do feel like re-adding this information, it was the first two sentences in the section. SumayyahGhori (talk) 08:05, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Links to Rhetoricians

I was wondering if you would add Wikipedia links to each of the rhetoricians you reference in the the article

Charles Nyonga FiveTymeWCW (talk) 20:08, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Politics Examples for Non-US Countries

I noticed that the vast majority of examples presented within the "Politics" section of the page focus on politicians or political events from the United States exclusively. Should it be necessary to diversify the scope of the article and add/cite information about digital rhetoric from other countries as well? KStanfo (talk) 03:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Technofeminism section

I started a technofeminist section to the digital rhetoric page. I included some citations from research articles that I have reviewed and linked other Wikipedia pages to this section. In the future I would like to see a list of scholars who have contributed to technofeminism in this section. I would also like to connect the TechnoFeminism book Wikipedia page with a summary of the book to this section on the digital rhetoric page. Shavedsquirrel97 (talk) 14:44, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Removed the image for the Lead. It was not relevant to the topic. Here is the link to the image in case anyone wants to recover it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Student_with_computer.JPG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khillm (talk • contribs) 14:45, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Scope of Influence

After adding more information about the scope of influence of digital rhetoric, focusing on mostly Social Media, Politics, Education, and Workplace, I am aware that there could be more ways that digital rhetoric expands its influence. I mostly focused on social media and the ways that the interconnected world of social media influence digital rhetoric in our everyday lives. I invite anyone who finds a new way that digital rhetoric influences our daily lives to add to this part. Also, while focusing mostly on social media, if there is a mode of social media that was not mentioned and would fit nicely, I encourage anyone to add where they see fit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dancer0211 (talk • contribs) 14:50, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I updated the education section to be more relevant. Digital rhetoric is highly implemented in classrooms. The second paragraph could use some more updating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by McEngl491 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I added a new sub-section on professionals in the workplace. It could use some more expanding since there are so many ways that the professional field now utilizes digital rhetoric. Also, I had not yet added any linked sites within the paragraph, so that needs some additions as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GNorell924 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I want to expand the different types of social media referenced, particularly with the addition of video-sharing platforms. In addition, I think the topic of Internet memes is worth discussing under social media as a type of digital rhetoric and would be interested to hear feedback. FishPhil (talk) 16:44, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

The subsection titled "Professionals in the Workplace" is lacking citations. I think a few sources should be added to make this section appear more credible. Shan.duffy (talk) 02:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Controversies section

I combined the "open access" and "copyright" sections into one. If you feel strongly that they should be separate, you can re-add the "open access" subheader above that paragraph. Lucymobe (talk) 14:55, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Links

I have tried my best to add as many relevant Wiki links to this page as possible, to allow readers access to a larger pool of information about this subject. However, I noticed that many of the concepts or people I wanted to link to are not yet articles on Wikipedia. It would be nice if someone else was able to possibly go through the page, note down important concepts/ people, and made articles on them (and then linked those articles to this page afterward!). A daunting task, but one well worth the effort in my opinion. Thanks! SumayyahGhori (talk) 15:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Organizing the Concepts Category

Under the tab for "concepts," there are too many that have similar descriptions. Combindinding collaboration, crowdsourcing, and delivery under circulation seem to be more effective. The sup-topics need to be trimmed down in words a bit. Under the tab for "interactivity," I collected mind sharing, multimodality, and remix as sub-categories.

The concept of "Electracy" needs more sources. I believe that the next editor can link it with Kairos.

Also, while moving some text around, the citations seem to have disappeared for most of the bulleted texts. If someone has the time, could they help by relinking the correct citation to the text?

FiveTymeWCW (talk) 15:11, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Suggestions for Concepts Section

I was one of the recent editors that took up organizing the concepts section. I added the "Avatar" paragraph into "Visual Rhetoric" as an example of the latter. In addition, I merged the former tagging and appropriation sections into "Rhetorical Velocity" because they aided understanding of the term. For future edits, it may be possible to combine critical literacy and electracy in some way. A fellow editor and I concluded that both terms seem to have an educational purpose in that they're skills acquired to deepen the understanding and use of digital rhetoric. Electracy seems like it could be a term used to expand on critical literacy, so that may be something to look into. Visook (talk) 15:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

When editing the history section the thing I thought was the most important for everyone to know was that the idea of multimedia and hypertexts. I did this by citing Angela Haas and her research on wampum belts. Also, the definition of digital rhetoric was pretty dated so I put the previous editor's ideas and put them in the past tense and put my additions in the present and future tense so that readers can also see the evolution of what rhetoriticians study and what they find important. I also made it a point to cite scholars such as Haas and Boyle et al. who are currently doing work in the field. By explaining what they are studying my hope is to broaden the reader's understanding of what digital rhetoric is because it goes beyond using just computers and tablets. There is still some work to be done to explain the history of digital rhetoric. Edits are welcomed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oakinfe1 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

The subsection titled "interactivity" contains a lot of useful information, but it is lacking citations to support the information. The definitions in this section would appear much more credible if they cited a source. Shan.duffy (talk) 02:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

History

When editing the history section the thing I thought was the most important for everyone to know was that the idea of multimedia and hypertexts. I did this by citing Angela Haas and her research on wampum belts. Also, the definition of digital rhetoric was pretty dated so I put the previous editor's ideas and put them in the past tense and put my additions in the present and future tense so that readers can also see the evolution of what rhetoriticians study and what they find important. I also made it a point to cite scholars such as Haas and Boyle et al. who are currently doing work in the field. By explaining what they are studying my hope is to broaden the reader's understanding of what digital rhetoric is because it goes beyond using just computers and tablets. There is still some work to be done to explain the history of digital rhetoric. Edits are welcomed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oakinfe1 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Scope of Influence section

While the content in the scope of influence introductory section serves as preview for the various areas in which that scope applies, I feel as though the part "Teachers can use podcasts, YouTube videos, and social media sites like Facebook and LinkedIn to facilitate discussions and increase students' interest in a topic. In addition, they can make use of distance learning modules as a form of online teaching." breaks from the flow of the rest of the paragraph and delves a little more into the specifics of the education section. Should this part be moved to the education section or otherwise deleted? KStanfo (talk) 02:41, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Super PAC info in politics section

I noticed that the sentence "An anti-Trump super PAC spent $9.9 million dollars in digital media" is not only uncited but fully out of place in the rest of the paragraph, which discusses political candidates. I have removed it until a citation can be found, so it can be put in a more appropriate section. KStanfo (talk) 03:54, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Technofeminism

I figured I'd mention this here since it was a fairly major change for the page's organization. I moved "technofeminism" from the "history" to the "concepts" section of the page, since it didn't really have any references to or indications of a time sequence and wasn't otherwise related to the history of digital rhetoric. KStanfo (talk) 04:04, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Social Media Tool.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Kairos and Technofeminism Sections, Deletion of paragraphs with no sources.

While there is a relationship between technofeminism and digital rhetoric, I am not sure if the relation is intertwined enough to need section on technofeminism. Similarly, while the idea behind Kairos is important to digital rhetoric (the time and context when something was said or created), I feel that it is unnecessary to dedicate a whole subsection to it. Thoughts?

I also went ahead and deleted paragrahs and sentences that had no sources, or added in a [citation needed] to sentences/paragraphs that I thought had good ideas, but lacked sources. Wooloo 246 (talk) 15:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Evaluation

What is the article's overall status? The status would be quite developed. It is listed as a starter page, but the topics are quite advanced in my opinion. I would say small tweaks and it could be rated higher. This article could be improved by adding more visual elements to stimulate and excite the page. Perhaps an audio recording of a scholar discussing digital rhetoric. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Microwavemade (talk • contribs) 16:09, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Improving the article's lead section

I think that editing the lead section of this article would pay off very well in improving this article's quality.

The lead section does have good attributes. It contains a good overview of this topic; its introductory sentence is an informational and engaging start and the section itself provides readers with an idea of what information this article will contain.

However, I think that the lead section could be improve. My main thought is that it could be made more concise. We could consider combining sentences and maximizing their meaning by using exacting language. This lead section would also benefit from being broken up into smaller, more focused paragraphs. Replacing the current image with a larger one would also make this article more attractive; I also think that a more relevant image could be found for this lead section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwertygirl123 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree that improving the lead section is of importance and would enhance article quality. I think it would be helpful to also include some mention of the various topics that are included throughout the article (at least the main subheadings) so that this section effectively summarizes the contents at first-glance. Additionally, the lead section should be more inclusive and not assume that technology affects everyone and that everyone has access to it. This will provide a more global approach to the topic.

__ Wiki811pedia (talk) 23:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Images

Content-wise the article seems great but it's almost hard to look at because it has a lot of large, continuous, blocks of texts. I think adding images, or other forms of digital media would be a good improvement. Seesarnahvah (talk) 21:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the long blocks of text pose an issue to readers. The while it might be tough to find visuals that fit organically into the article for this topic, I think there could definitely be some improvement in this area. Specifically, the pictures of Obama's post and the hypertext strike me as images that could be improved by finding images that are easier to absorb at first glance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JarretStidham4 (talk • contribs) 03:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Utilize more applicable images

While I felt the image regarding President Obama was effective, image 1 contributes little to the article and image 3 feels out of place considering the information could have been covered with a hyperlink to prose. I would suggest we look to improve the image placement in the article to make them more visually appealing, as well as seek to find images that are more applicable to the article. Such examples could include following the trend of the "politics" section and including examples in "social media" and "education" in order to reduce the sparsity of the images while keeping them applicable to the article. Xiphias22 (talk) 00:04, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Jargon and images

The use of jargon in this article may be off putting to some readers, I think it'd be a good idea to sweep the whole article and paraphrase where possible. Also, there's far too much white space on this page, several of these text blocks need to be offset with pleasing and relevant images or other digital media. B3c0m1ngrh1z0m3 (talk) 02:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Social Media Section

I think the social media section is rather brief. In the section about politics, the article goes more in depth about the propagation of different messages across different platforms, so I wouldn't want to be redundant by adding that information to the social media section. However, I think that perhaps a few examples of digital rhetoric in the social media realm might be a helpful addition. The #MeToo movement? Or Blackout Tuesday? Just a suggestion Nicoleemory (talk) 04:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Photos

Hello,

The article would really benefit form having more photos. The passage is very information dense.Jalapinata (talk)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Funny Meme.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:54, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Technofeminism Section

While evaluating this article, I found that there was no mention of some of the goals of the techno feminist movement that intersect with digital rhetoric, such as accessibility (the digital divide), virtual violence against women, along with exploitation, and more.Mentioning some of these events that relate to both digital rhetoric and techno feminism may better the readers understanding of the relation between the two.

Kreed123 (talk) 00:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Photos

Hello all,

I think this article could really benefit from having more relevant photos and removing those photos that do not add much value to the sections. Some of the photos are also a little hard to read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GK2000GK (talk • contribs) 13:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello,

I agree with the comment above that the photos are an aspect of the article that could benefit from improvement. The current Xbox photo and the photo of the tweet could be updated with media more relevant to the topics at hand. The Xbox photo could be replaced with something that enhances the community or communication aspects of online gaming, since that may explain rhetoric better. JKobrien1 (talk) 01:01, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

About the Lead

Hello, fellow editors!

I just wanted to bring up a concern I have about the main opener/lead. To me, it seems that we dive into the theory too fast without taking the time to describe it thoroughly in layman's terms. Perhaps adding some examples could help? Upon first glance, the page's outline seems more helpful as a definition (ie, listing what digital rhetoric encompasses and affects) than the official text itself. Also, the "r" in "rhetoric" of the title should probably be capitalized...

Thoughts? Anyhow, thanks for your time!

KnightWolf8 (talk) 01:24, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Concurring With Other Editors

I concur with the previous two points brought up. Some of the photos included (such as the Xbox 360 and the old books) do not seem to serve any real purpose other than to dress up the page. I also think the introduction does not provide an overview of the article but instead jumps right into the content. The introduction should not discuss information not mentioned in the article, so I agree that this content should be moved into another section.

I also think issues of access should be discussed more in depth. The article mainly focuses on access issues related to socioeconomic disparities. However, the discussion on accessibility in terms of ability and disability should be included in the "access" section, as should a discussion of language barriers. JamieBagman (talk) 02:11, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Critical approaches

I feel like there should be more of a discussion on the critical approaches. Not just what they are but what is good and bad about each approach. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sydneyh1472 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Organization

Many of the thoughts throughout the subsections stray from the topic of digital rhetoric (Politics, Misinformation). This article would be a more helpful, easier read if extraneous sentences were pulled out and subsections were organized from big ideas to supporting details. Sections are currently somewhat randomly arranged. Invictamaneo (talk) 00:16, 10 February 2022 (UTC)