Talk:Electronic literature/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Electronic literature. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Speculation

I've read some articles that articles that claim improvisational theater is a type of literature, so it stands to reason that flashmobs that result in improve theater would qualify. Can anyone help with the source?131.125.58.78 (talk) 18:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Impro/flashmobs would only be electronic literature if they incorporate computation in some meaningful way. An early example was

Wittig R (1994) Invisible Rendevous: Connection and Collaboration in the New Landscape of Electronic Writing. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan UP.

That book documents INVISIBLE SEATTLE, an electronic bulletin board begun in the mid-Eighties in Seattle that, in turn, gave its name to a collaborative novel of electronically assembled random contributions from the citizenry.

Netprov is a genre of e-lit that creates collaborative online improvisational literature. Online larps could certainly be considered e-lit, but haven't typically been seen that way yet to my knowledge. Some references include

Wittig, Rob. Netprov: Networked Improvised Literature for the Classroom and Beyond. Amherst College Press. 2021. doi:10.3998/mpub.12387128
Burr, Lauren. “Bicycles, Bonfires and an Airport Apocalypse: The Poetics and Ethics of Netprov.” Hyperrhiz: New Media Cultures, no. 11, 2015. doi:10.20415/hyp/011.e01

(talk) 14:20, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! There's now a separate article on Netprov, and it's mentioned in this article as well. Lijil (talk) 14:56, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Electronic literature. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110918080845/http://onthehuman.org/2009/07/on-reading-300-works-of-electronic-literature-preliminary-reflections/ to http://onthehuman.org/2009/07/on-reading-300-works-of-electronic-literature-preliminary-reflections/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:50, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Electronic literature/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TompaDompa (talk · contribs) 14:02, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

This is a WP:QUICKFAIL based on criterion 3 (It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include {{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar tags.) and criterion 1 (It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria), specifically WP:GACR 2b (reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)). The current version has several uncited paragraphs. There are also issues with tone and borderline promotional language such as "easy-to-use" and "classics". I'll add some maintenance tags to the article itself. TompaDompa (talk) 14:02, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.