Graduate of Western Oregon University with a degree focus in writing. I have a lot of hobbies and interests, but probably none I like more than writing, editing, and otherwise making the internet's grammar and punctuation better. My sarcastic sense of humor often comes through in my writing, but I am always first professional.
|EDUCATION: BS Writing/Philosophy from Western Oregon University||BLOG: None provided|
|CERTIFICATIONS: None provided||CURRICULUM VITAE: None provided|
When considering the article on Authorship by Krista Kennedy, many valid points can be
sussed out. First, there is a very strong correlation she makes with the relationship between agency,
genre, and copyright as they relate to authorship. She states, essentially, that the traditional way of
defining Authorship (a Poetic Author and creator of original compositions), should not necessarily be
considered a flat definition across all genres. In areas like the textual curation of dictionaries and
encyclopedia's, original ideas are not expected to be involved. In fact, those genres of text are
considered mass compilations of already existing facts and ideas. She then goes on to explain that in
the legal sense of copyright, in order to hold authorship of something, one must be able to demonstrate
both responsibility and decision-making abilities. It is for this reason, she says bots are not considered
authors in really any sense of the word as we define it.
This becomes a very pertinent argument when considering what constitutes authorship in mass
collaborative texts such as Wikipedia. These such situations are becoming more prevalent as the
internet allows masses of people access to the same information. Specifically, the argument is whether
or not the base of Wikipedia (created by bots) can really be considered authored items. I think they can,
but only insofar as the bot's creator is credited with the existence of the bot. I don't believe the bot itself
can be considered the author of anything. It has no decision-making skills. It can only do what it was
programmed to do. It works off of the will of the creator, essentially it holds no will of it's own. The
bot is an agent involved in authorship, but truly has no agency in this case.