Katelyn Miller
10/5/17
2.02 Introduction to Argument
Part 1: Use the S.M.E.L.L process to read and annotate the op-ed piece “The Grant Shapps Affair Is
a Testament to Wikipedia's Integrity and Transparency” (below).
Part 2: Answer the S.M.E.L.L. questions below, using complete sentences and evidence from the
text:
1. Who is the writer?
The writer is Justin Anthony Knapp.
2. Who is the audience?
The audience is the people who would or could possibly use Wikipedia.
3. What is the writer’s purpose?
The writer's purpose is to let people know that people abuse the ability to edit Wikipedia articles
and that it needs to be fixed and stopped so people can learn the actual facts of what they are
searching for.
4. What is the overall issue, problem, and/or subject?
The overall issue is that people abuse editing in Wikipedia and put in inappropriate or incorrect
information in the articles and other people read them and get wrong information without
knowing.
5. What is the historical context surrounding the subject?
The historical context surrounding the subject is when James Madison issued articles to
persuade American's to adopt the US constitution was concerned that the essay might be similar
to political parties or interest groups in today's language
6. What is the claim? What is the counterclaim?
The claim is that people should not be able to freely edit articles in Wikipedia. The counterclaim
is that some people actually edit the articles to better them and fix mistakes in them.
7. What evidence is used to support the writer’s claim?
The evidence used to support the writer's claim is that Grant Shapps used editing Wikipedia
articles as a press release, advertisement, and a personal press.
8. What evidence is used to refute the opposition’s position?
The evidence used to refute the opposition's position is that Wikipedia is largely self-policing and
investigates itself as members find inaccuracies, potential libel or petty vandalism.
9. How would you rate the credibility and validity of the evidence?
This study source was downloaded by 100000850872992 from CourseHero.com on 04-11-2023 10:52:02 GMT -05:00
https://www.coursehero.com/file/26211784/202-Introduction-to-Argumentpdf/
10/5/17
2.02 Introduction to Argument
Part 1: Use the S.M.E.L.L process to read and annotate the op-ed piece “The Grant Shapps Affair Is
a Testament to Wikipedia's Integrity and Transparency” (below).
Part 2: Answer the S.M.E.L.L. questions below, using complete sentences and evidence from the
text:
1. Who is the writer?
The writer is Justin Anthony Knapp.
2. Who is the audience?
The audience is the people who would or could possibly use Wikipedia.
3. What is the writer’s purpose?
The writer's purpose is to let people know that people abuse the ability to edit Wikipedia articles
and that it needs to be fixed and stopped so people can learn the actual facts of what they are
searching for.
4. What is the overall issue, problem, and/or subject?
The overall issue is that people abuse editing in Wikipedia and put in inappropriate or incorrect
information in the articles and other people read them and get wrong information without
knowing.
5. What is the historical context surrounding the subject?
The historical context surrounding the subject is when James Madison issued articles to
persuade American's to adopt the US constitution was concerned that the essay might be similar
to political parties or interest groups in today's language
6. What is the claim? What is the counterclaim?
The claim is that people should not be able to freely edit articles in Wikipedia. The counterclaim
is that some people actually edit the articles to better them and fix mistakes in them.
7. What evidence is used to support the writer’s claim?
The evidence used to support the writer's claim is that Grant Shapps used editing Wikipedia
articles as a press release, advertisement, and a personal press.
8. What evidence is used to refute the opposition’s position?
The evidence used to refute the opposition's position is that Wikipedia is largely self-policing and
investigates itself as members find inaccuracies, potential libel or petty vandalism.
9. How would you rate the credibility and validity of the evidence?
This study source was downloaded by 100000850872992 from CourseHero.com on 04-11-2023 10:52:02 GMT -05:00
https://www.coursehero.com/file/26211784/202-Introduction-to-Argumentpdf/
