Response to Davidson close readings

Thank you all for your insightful close readings of Davidson. I just wanted to write a brief point to re-emphasize some of the things we discussed in class. Most of the posts, I believe, would benefit from more specific references to particular moments in the passage that illustrate their analyses. However, Katie and Marimar do a particularly good job of providing specific evidence to support their points—Katie’s even makes some connections to the introduction that we read last Tuesday. I also liked how Emily drew attention to the way that the use of “we” includes both Davidson and her audience in this crowdsourcing effort. A number of you noted that the binary between crowdsourcing on the one hand and credentialism on the other isn’t as absolute as it might seem. Jonas’s post explains that expertise is not inimical to crowdsourcing, which is somewhat similar to Marimar’s point that crowdsourcing would ironically be improved if it included some experts. All in all, many of you have done a good job of not only identifying the main point of the passage, but also “reading against the grain,” to use the terminology from our handout. Continue to pursue these avenues, while also attending to the formal elements and specific moments that highlight the point that you’re making.

Good work everyone! I look forward to discussing this reading with you all shortly.