About

Learn more about Writing Commons. Meet the people and motivations behind the project. Check out our Mission, Readership, Masthead, and History.

Writing Commons is

  • an encyclopedia for writers
  • a medium for teachers to share best practices, research, and theoretical approaches.
About
Aaron Swartz Best Webtext Award
About
Editorial Board/Editors

Subjects
Collaboration
Composition
Design
Editing
Genre
Information Literacy
Invention
Organization
Mindset
Research
Revision
Rhetoric
Style
Writing Studies
Writing with Sources
Interaction
Contribute
Dear Past Authors
Feedback

Help
Writer’s Guide
Teacher’s Guide
Tutoring

Support
Courses
How to Navigate Writing Commons
Site Map

Mission

[ See Contribute. We are eager to review submissions of articles ]

Readership

From talks with colleagues, we know that Writing Commons is used by students in undergraduate composition, business, STEM/Technical Writing, and creative writing courses.

We integrated Google Analytics into our site in 2012. Between 2012 and 2019, 9,198,1957 users consulted 16,698,704 pages at Writing Commons. Our users read 1.52 pages/session.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is Screen-Shot-2020-02-06-at-10.55.18-AM-1024x390.png

Screenshot Date: 12/31/19

Masthead

Editorial Board

Editor-in-Chief: Cassandra Branham, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University
Chief Technology Officer: Alston Chapman, Visual-Eight
Founder and Publisher: Joseph M. Moxley

Ownership and Publisher

Writing Commons is owned and published by My Reviewers LLC.

History

We have published four major editions of Writing Commons:

  1. 1st Edition (2003 to 2008)
    In 2003, Joe Moxley published College Writing Online (Pearson) under a traditional copyright and commercial paywall. 
  2. 2nd Edition (2008 to 2012)
    From , Moxley self published the project @CollegeWriting.Org. Like the 1st Edition, the 2nd Edition was written primarily as a resource for students in college composition courses.
  3. 3rd Edition (2012 to 2019)
    1. We changed our name to Writing Commons, moved to http://writingcommons.org,
    2. We reimagined our project as an experiment in commons-based, peer production.
      1. We peer reviewed and published more than 200 evidence-based, fact-driven, substantive articles by faculty and graduate students from Writing Studies; Communication Studies; Composition Studies; Professional and Technical Communication; Rhetoric; Rhetoric & Technology; English Literature; and Creative Writing.
  4. 4th Edition (2020 to present)
    1. We adopted the conventions of an online encyclopedia
    2. We attempt to model and practice
    3. We problematize topics (e.g., rhetoric, composing, etc.) and trace topics as socially and historically situated. We leverage the affordances of WordPress to more robustly depict the complexity of composing, information literacy, critical thinking–and so on.

4th Edition Goals

Sometimes it’s necessary to deconstruct something and begin again with an entirely new effort rather than simply try to patch it up. That’s what we did with the 4th Edition.

As you can imagine, we were encouraged that over 9 million people consulted the 3rd edition. By some standards we were one of the more successful open-education projects.

However, from Google Analytics, we knew the 3rd edition had a high bounce rate (80%) and an average session duration of 1:20. Users were conducting a google search, jumping on board, and then grabbing and going. Once they visited our site, we didn’t interest them sufficiently or provide the navigational clues to help them find articles on topics similar to the ones that brought them on board.

From user feedback, we believed our high bounce rate was attributable to problems with our menu structure and navigational schema: users couldn’t successfully navigate the site to find the resources they needed. It just seemed confusing. Heck, at times we couldn’t find stuff we knew we had written!

Part of this problem could be attributed to our success and growth. Over 17 years, our project had evolved in ways our original menu system hadn’t originally anticipated. With the first two editions, we were a composition textbook for first-year writing. Then the 3rd edition branched out to fiction and professional and technical writing. This led to the fragmentation of content. For instance, our articles on audience awareness were organized by course and disciplinary folders (e.g., technical writing, business writing, expository writing).

We also knew that as a commons-based, peer production effort, we sometimes lacked project coordination. Between 2008 and 2020, project leaders, authors, interns had come and gone. That led to a bit of chaos: Over time, we had peer reviewed and accepted articles that repeated existing content. Frankly, as a volunteer project, we had sometimes overlooked some problems we saw with the site. And, despite repeated calls for manuscripts, we were unable to obtain authors for much needed content. Some of our content had become a bit outdated.

On reflection, we came to wonder whether we had created the sort of House of Lore Stephen North had ridiculed in The Making of Knowledge in Composition:

The House of Lore, as it were: a rambling, to my mind delightful old manse, wing branching off from wing, addition tacked to addition, in all sorts of materials–brick, wood, canvas, sheet metal, cardboard–with turrets and gables, minarets and spires, spiral staircases, rope ladders, pitons, dungeons, secret passageways–all seemingly random, yet all connected. Each generation of Practioners inherits this pile from the one before, is ushered around some of what there is, and then, it its turn, adds its own touches. Naturally, the structure is huge, sprawling. There are, after all, no provisions for tearing any of it down. Various portions of it can and almost certainly will be forgotten and rediscovered again and again. A wing abandoned by one generation will be resettled (and may be refurbished) by another. And note, too, that there is nothing to rule out parallel discovery or re-invention, either; so the House of Lore has many rooms that look very much alike.

North (2006). The Making of Knowledge in Composition: Portrait of an Emerging Field. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers. p. 27

In summary, after years of effort, thanks to the popularity of our site, we knew we were helping some teachers and students. Still, we also had conclusive evidence that it was time for us to detonate our house of lore–to raze it to the ground and start over. A light editing was insufficient. A major revision was insufficient. We could either completely blow it up, raze it to the ground, and start over–or walk away.

Frankly, we would have walked away if not for Google Analytics.

From Google Analytics’ we could see people were finding our site to be useful. And we got picked up as required readings for the first composition MOOCs that Duke University, Georgia Tech, and Ohio State ran withh support from The Gates Foundation.

Moving forward, we hope to improve our existing content via revision and editing. Plus, we hope to publish new content that robustly meets the needs of writers in workplace, school, and home settings.

Our informal research led to the following goals for the 4th edition:

  1. We reimagined our rhetorical situation, particularly our audience:
    • For editions 1 & 2 we had imagined a student in an undergraduate writing classes. Then, in the 3rd edition we imagined students in professional and technical writing courses.

      Now, thanks to Google analytics and our informal talks with colleagues, we’ve come to realize that our audience extends beyond students.
  2. We determined the textbook genre we’d used for editions 1 through 3 constrained our organization and clarity. The convention of alphabetical ordering for encyclopedias enabled us to organize concepts alphabetically by topic rather than by discipline or course. Plus, we could leverage the affordances of our new medium (a wordpress site) and the encyclopedic convention of cross referencing and indexing topics across topics to illustrate stronger synergies across concepts.

    Plus, we identified other advantages to the genre conventions of the encyclopedia: (1) the historical focus on providing all detailed information about a particular topic; (2) the scholarly tradition of paraphrasing and citing primary sources, textual research, and empirical research; (3) the tendency to historize content and show the evolution of scholarly conversations over time,
  3. We jettisoned Joomla, the content management system we had used for editions 2 and 3, and we replaced it with WordPress:
    1. Unlike Joomla, WordPress enables us to identify multiple authors for an article.
    2. WordPress enables us to better layer content–i.e.
      • to use links and menu systems to empower the reader to go deeper, if they so wish, into research and theory
      • to show associations among ideas, and
      • to better understand relationships among concepts.
  4. To identify the thematic categories for the 4th edition, we conducted case study interviews with writing program administrators and card-sorting usability exercises with undergraduates and faculty.

    Based on our informal research and anecdotal experience working with students in our classrooms, we defined the following core topics: Collaboration, Composition, Courses, Design, Editing, Genre, Information Literacy, Invention, Organization, Mindset, Research, Revision, Rhetoric, Style, and Writing Studies.
  5. After defining the major thematic categories (AKA Subjects or Topics of Interest to Writers), we wrote introductory essays for those categories as well as the pages subsumed under those categories. In total, between 2018 and 2020, we wrote 277 new articles on topics of concern for writers. For example,
    1. We extended our articles on Style, especially Active vs Passive Voice, Diction, Elements of Style, Figurative Language, Grammar, Mechanics, MLA Style, 8th Edition, and Point of View.
    2. We adopted a historiographical approach to many of our new articles. This involved defining the concept under discussion at the beginning of the article
      1. illustrating how the concept had evolved over time. (As an example of this, see Rhetorical Situation.)
      2. providing citations and identifying additional resources on the topic for the especially curious reader.
    3. From the STEM community, we foraged the concept of intrapersonal, interpersonal, and cognitive competencies as a theoretical foundation for literacy.
    4. From Information Studies, especially ACRL (Association of College and Research Libraries), we updated our Information Literacy resources.
    5. From cognitive psychology and the learning sciences, we developed new resources related to Mindset.
  6. For new content, we moved to publishing under a traditional copyright. We moved away from publishing content under a Creative Commons license: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 because
    1. We view our encyclopedia as a work in progress. We are routinely revising our work to ensure that our content represents our best efforts. The problem with the Creative Commons copyright was that it permitted others to republish our work. Over time, this led to people publishing work by us that was obsolete. We are unhappy when we come across earlier drafts of our articles republished by others.
    2. We were disappointed with how others were using our content. We came across numerous instances where others did attribute us as required and yet did so in ways that we felt were a bit deceptive. On numerous occasions we came across our content on other people’s websites with the attribution hidden or difficult to find. For example, some of our work had been uploaded to LumenLearning and to see the attribution for our project the user had to either double click Licenses and Attributions or double click a footnote.
    3. The authors of our new content preferred us publishing under traditional copyright.
  7. We had two major reasons for adding Courses as an entirely new section.
    1. We wanted to give faculty who use Writing Commons examples of how the site could be used for different courses.
    2. Politically, we also think of our courses as a form of radical sharing — a means of pushing back against the Balkanization of teacher’s intellectual property.

      Here we speak of the trend in U.S. higher education to lock course content behind course management systems like Canvas and Blackboard. Teachers may be employed as part-time service workers. Hired for low salaries without benefits, teachers work up their courses and then lose them when their positions are not renewed.

      At Writing Commons, we value academic conversation, academic freedom. We understand many faculty in the U.S. are required by their institutions to develop their classes in course management systems such as Blackboard or Canvas. While there are some advantages to course management tools, they also limit academic freedom and opportunities to further develop courses and projects in collaboration with others teaching similar courses

      Particularly now, during the exigencies of academia’s pandemic moment with a large-scale shift to online delivery, it’s important to share what we can, to understand how shifting intellectual property policies and practices constrain that sharing, and to work to find ways to subvert the exploitation of, especially, non-tenure track (contingent, adjunct, and graduate student) labor.
  8. We added Writing Studies as an entirely new section of Writing Commons.

3rd Edition

The 3rd edition was published between 2012 and 2019 at http://writingcommons.org.

The 3rd edition began as a modest, open-access educational resource for students and teachers of college-level writing courses, emerging from two previously published editions of College Writing Online.

At the onset, we aspired to provide the best possible composition textbook for first-year writing students — for free. Frankly, this remains a motivating factor as conventional educational resources continue to drive up costs for students, with The College Board estimating an annual cost of $1200 for textbooks and supplies in the 2019-2020 school year (College Board 2020).

Further inspired by Yochai Benkler’s (2006) work on commons-based peer production as well as the emergence of Wikipedia, we modeled the 3rd Edition after a typical academic genre: the academic journal. We created an Advisory Board and an Editorial Board and invited faculty and graduate students to submit pedagogical articles. 

[See Advisory Board/Editorial Board for 3rd Edition (2012-2019]

In 2014, after hackers attacked and took over the site in 2014 and we had to fight to reboot a new version of the site, we began incorporating ads. The ads enabled us to better fund security and server costs.

Quentin Vieregge, the Editor in Chief for Writing Commons between 2011 and 2017, worked with an Editorial Board & Review Editors to

  • peer review an additional 300 articles.
  • encourage faculty to submit articles for creative, professional and technical writing courses
  • better meet the needs of an international audience
  • publish a monthly newsletter for the Writing Studies community, unCommon News

For a brief while, we piloted My Campuses, which was an effort to showcase student work. Participating schools were Malmö University, Eastern Michigan University, and the University of South Florida

Thanks to the hard work of our review editors and advisory committee, the 3rd edition doubled the size of Writing Commons. We peer reviewed many submissions and published original works from university and college faculty and graduate students related to fiction, creative nonfiction, business writing, scientific writing, and technical writing. We were used by the first English composition MOOCs, sponsored by the Gates Foundation, Duke University, Georgia Tech, and the Ohio State University.

2nd Edition Goals

The second edition was published as College Writing Online at from 2008 to 2012.

Published in Joomla, a content management system, the second edition was written primarily as a resource for students in college composition courses.

1st Edition Goals

The 1st edition of Writing Commons was published in 2003 by Pearson Education under the title College Writing Online. This was the first solely online composition textbook for first-year writing students. It was awarded the 2003 Distinguished Book Award from Computers and Composition.

Acknowledgements

4th Edition

We thank

  • Alston Chapman for his passion for excellence. Since 2012, Alston has been our Chief Technology officer. Alston defends against the barrage of hackers who seek to bring us down. He provides us ongoing technical expertise and brilliant guidance.
  • Ilene Frank, a librarian at Hillsborough Community College (Florida) and adjunct professor for the University of Maryland Global Campus and Director of Library Services UoPeople (https://uopeople.edu), has remained resolution in her support of our efforts.
  • Jenifer Paquette, a professor at Hillsborough Community College, for her ongoing leadership on the Style sections.
  • Janice Walker, professor emeritus at Georgia Southern University, for her ongoing advice (and encouragement) regarding the organization of our encyclopedia.

3rd Edition

We could not have developed the third edition without the wise counsel of our advisory board: Linda Adler-Kassner, University of California, Santa Barbara; James P. Gee, Arizona State University; Graeme Harper, Oakland University; Susan Lang, The Ohio State University; Charlie Lowe, Grand Valley State University; MC Morgan, Bemidji State University; Mike Palmquist, Colorado State University; Alex Reid, SUNY at Buffalo; Howard Rheingold, Stanford University; Shirley Rose, Arizona State University; Kristin Sainani, Stanford School of Medicine; George Siemens, Athabasca University; Taku Sugimoto, Chiba Institute of Technology; Gregory L. Ulmer, University of Florida; Janice Walker, Georgia Southern University; Martin Weller, Open University; Bronwyn T. Williams, University of Louisville.

Quentin Vieregge, UW-Eau Claire, led the effort to develop the third edition. Under Quentin’s leadership we focused more broadly on the needs of students in professional and technical writing courses. As Editor-in-Chief until 2018, Quentin oversaw the editorial process, working with our review editors to conduct blind reviews of hundreds of essays.

We are deeply indebted to our review editors of the third edition for their professional service, including E. Jonathan Arnett, Kennesaw State University; Matt Barton, St. Cloud State University;  Matt Balk, Ball State University; William Carney, Cameron University; Joel Friederich, University of Wisconsin; Tamara Girardi, Indiana University of Pennsylvania; Andrea Greenbaum, Barry University; Heidi Skurat Harris, University of Arkansas at Little Rock; Stephanie Hedge, SUNY Potsdam; Mitchell Ray James, Indiana University of Pennsylvania; Christopher Justice, The University of Baltimore; Amy C. Kimme Hea, University of Arizona; bonnie lenore kyburz, Lewis University; Jennifer Lee Novotney, MMI Preparatory School; Angela Eward-Mangione, Hillsborough Community College; Jennifer Marlow, College of Saint Rose; Patricia Portanova, Northern Essex Community College; Daisy Pignetti, University of Wisconsin-Stout; Abigail Scheg, Elizabeth City State University; Andrea Scott, Pitzer College; Lars Söderlund, Wright State University; Todd Taylor, University of North Carolina Chapel Hill; Ryan Weber, University of Alabama-Huntsville, Susan Youngblood, Auburn University

1st Edition

Our thanks to Joe Opiela for serving as our editor for the first iteration of this text, which was published by Pearson Education.

Articles on Writing Commons

Joe Moxley’s Academe Blog
This blog traced our collaborative efforts to develop the 3rd Edition of Writing Commons under a Creative Commons copyright.

Moxley, J. (2013, June 17). Bending the cost curve on college textbooks. The Tampa Bay Times.  Retrieved from http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/column-bending-the-cost-curve-on-college-textbooks/2124156

Moxley, J. (2013). Open textbook publishing. Academe, September/October 2013. 40-43. Retrieved from https://www.aaup.org/article/open-textbook-publishing#.XpHfUVNKhhE

Benkler, Yochai (2006), The wealth of networks : how social production transforms markets and freedom (1st ed.), New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press.

North (2006). The Making of Knowledge in Composition: Portrait of an Emerging Field. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers. p. 27