Belshaw, D. (2014). The Essential Elements of Digital Literacies. Retrieved from <digitalliteraci.es>

Treating memes as a case study in digital literacy is a brilliant approach. Moreover, we can now see the elements of ambiguity and the eight elements of information literacy, which Belshaw offers, at play.

Indeed, this chapter gives me a great deal of insight into the pedagogy of the ED 654 class for which we are doing this assignment and reading. The speed of creativity, speed of publishing, speed of feedback, (dead meme, or viral) variety of mediums, the complexity of identifying resources and organizing them, of finding and participating in affinity circles, these are well mirrored in the class website. Now, does my discomfort with this necessarily situate me on the visitor:resident continuum as just a dabbler? Does, my lack of interest and participation in some of these "formats" "communities" etc. disqualify me from literacy or citizenship? Alternatively, am I participating in a way and to a degree that is personally adequate and satisfying?

Another question to unpack regards my trying on the alternative self of Instructional Designer. If, I do not have this immersion if I am unaware of what is occurring online then how can I possibly be responsive to teachers and learners in that environment?

In Digital Storytelling, I engaged in making my first“remix/mashup” online. Moreover, I thoroughly enjoyed the creative process. So, my ears perked up on this chapter.

I like this thought. I do think that Belshaw is onto something. Nevertheless, before we move too quickly, I think it is important to remember analog has a similar experience I think however, it is more ephemeral and hence, may never make it to a medium that can sit beside the “work.”

Yet, I think it is interesting to slow down and think about our analog past, and our canonical past, before we move too quickly. Is it possible that counter-examples do make it into the canon the reverent, at least in public, hold them up as a negative example, perhaps Francois Rabelais and, Jonathan Swift who sit perversely in the Canon?

Many of the painterly isms from the late 19th and early 20th century might fit here too. We understand fauvism and cubism as masterful and exemplary of modern art at the turn of the last century. But they were in their moment remixing, re-appropriating, and riffing against the canon as it stood at that moment.

Certainly, thousands of musical improvisations at drunken after parties riffed off “works.” Song lyrics sang in corner taverns remixed to suit local taste and issues. Ephemeral, but widespread and widely participated in.

I think this is perhaps a more seminal moment again like the insight about the printing press in Chapter 2. We like to talk about the ephemeral nature of the internet, bit rot, and dead links, 404 errors. Indeed, librarians and archivist are concerned with the volume of content and the rate of change. But, online the traces last longer than just last night's sing-along at the corner pub.

Perhaps, like God, the Canon is dead, and the internet killed it/them. Moreover, we all bear witness that they died pecked to death by ducks, remixed, re-appropriated, and riffed off.

What a fascinating shift from digital literacies to web literacies I was caught by surprise. I was operating as if digital literacy included web literacy. I see and experience the greatest complexity online not in what I can produce on my local machine. The categories he suggests for web literacies “Exploring, Building, and Connecting” are presented as unlike the eight elements of digital literacy, comparing apples and oranges. Alas, in the end, I just disagree, this is an unnecessary proliferation of theory. Those three categories can easily be subsumed into the eight elements. To my way of thinking the web, the larger environment is the most complex and hence the eight elements are best for describing that complexity. So, no I do not find this turn convincing nor compelling.

Turning to coding… I recall in the old days of the internet back in 1997 a person had to learn HTML to make web pages. CSS had not been invented yet, nor JavaScript and certainly not PHP. In the intervening time, we have seen programs that help one code like HTMLKit, and I think even more important content management programs like WordPress, and Drupal, which have rendered knowledge of web coding unnecessary. Oh, occasionally, I will toggle between the HTML editor and text editor and modify the HTML, but that is mostly a conceit. Returning to gaming, many games came with landscape editors and other tools that allowed a person to create scenarios and maps without knowing a“word” of code.

So, I think it is important to be cautious here too. I just want to slow our rush to treat coding as the panacea that it probably is not.That said, I love that I have the skill and that it enriches my experience of the web. Frequently, I will left click and select “view page source” to see how or why something is so. I just want to be more cautious than many folks who uncritically praise the practice of coding. It rankles a bit like the outside in prescriptions and lists of attributes of “netizenship” vitamin pills just because they are good for us.

I am content with Belshaw’s welcome to the reader to rip and remix his book. Certainly, he offers some summary and an appreciative thank you to the reader for their time.

However, for me his welcome to remake the book is refreshing. I like very much that he authored the book online and in real time taking comments and feedback and that in the end, he returns the content to the internet. I think this casts a very postmodern sense of authorship and is completely fitting. We are past the self-reflective theorizing of the 1990's and instead, postmodernity is taken for granted.