Talk:Free writing

Twitter Favoritism?

The "Evolution of free blogging from early 2000's to now" section appears to be biased towards Twitter, almost coming off as an advertisement for the site. The sentences in question being, " For any thought that you want to share with the world Twitter has become the medium for such a thing as well as being able to connect with a large number of people at any time" and "Twitter currently holds on top for one of the largest bases of users actively writing and sharing their thoughts to the world furthering change how we free write.". These are not needed to understand the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ailurophobic (talk • contribs) 15:21, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Reypenate620.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Note

I will be separating Free writing from Automatic writing and creating a separate article. Address any comments to my desk. Alphabeter 00:15 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Its done. Different concepts (even there is so much confusion in general view). Wikidās ॐ 16:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Freeblogging be merged into Free writing. I think that the content in the Freeblogging article can easily be explained in the context of Free writing, and the Free writing article is of a reasonable size in which the merging of Freeblogging will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. 82.215.38.246 (talk) 11:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I see no point in maintaining these as separate articles. ThreeOfCups (talk) 20:28, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I also agree. It looks like this page was made with the intent of advertising that questionable looking website in the external links section. Wethilio (talk) 00:41, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Goldberg's four rules

Aside from the wordy repetition of "often," this sentence suggests that four rules will follow, but more than four bullet points are listed:

Here are the essential rules that are often formulated for the beginners or students, often a paraphrase of Natalie Goldberg's "Rules for Free Writing," [7][8] often referred as Natalie Goldberg's first four rules of writing:[9][10]

75.11.19.243 (talk) 19:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

External Links

The second link in the prior revision (to reverseverse.com) was dead. Linked to an article on using freewriting to draft a novel instead. Jordan^{Talk tome} 11:15, 25 November 2015 (UTC+2)

Hi people! There’s a cool freewriting tool free-write-prompts.com, I’ve added it, but some guy keeps deleting it. Also I think there used to be some more useful liknks on the page, like 750words etc., and they are gone also (perhaps deleted by same person?). Maybe there’s someone here with authority to take a look at this. Thanks! sirartemcamelot

FORNITE BATTLE pass

FORNITE BATTLE PASS I JUST S#% OUT MY A#% BOOTED UP MY PC TO GET THE FORNITE BATTLE pass FORNITE DID I MENTOTION FORNITE ITS NIGHT TIME 5 O'CLOCK ITS BASSACLY NIGHT TIME — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.69.137 (talk) 09:10, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

TIPS FOR MANAGING SMALL BUSINESS FINANCES

TIPS FOR MANAGING SMALL BUSINESS FINANCES 192.145.174.48 (talk) 07:04, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Writ 2 - Academic Writing

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2024 and 1 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gwenyth Toledo, Milanrex (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Icecream209 (talk) 07:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Referencing mistakes

I've spotted some corrections in the page. Reference 10 and 11 ("The Thesis Journey: Travelling with Charley" and ("Guided writing and free writing") should be removed or changed. Reference 10 does not even relate to the paragraph it was linked at. Reference 11 seems to be a mistake that someone forgot to edit out because it looks similar to reference 12. VividlyDull (talk) 00:55, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done Replaced ref 10 with a cn tag; I could see some faint connection for source 10 if I stretched my imagination enough, but that's certainly WP:SYNTH anyway. Removed ref 11 as requested. Liu1126 (talk) 01:11, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2024

2001:4930:172:25:209E:8FDF:DD99:6E6F (talk) 17:39, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

In the age of AI, free writing's importance has continued to take precedence. However complete and sophisticated AI content might be, it is slated to contain some elements of misinformation, disinformation, and cross-pollinating conspiracy theories. AI content needs constant human oversight, though it is undeniably true that AI exists not to replace but to augment human intelligence and creativity. Since AI's generative process cannot/should not escape human oversight, it makes sense to consider AI content part of free writing, let's say, part of focused free writing. In terms of linguistic expression, logical ordering, organization, and structure, text generated by AI may be tempting and fabulous. Still, in terms of linguistic justice, clarity of ideas, accuracy of fact, and honesty of overall precision, there will always be a basis for skepticism, interrogation, critical reflection, and hesitation. Thus, it is good to treat a written substance arising from our interaction with AI as a part of pre-writing, freewriting, brainstorming, and many other activities in a preliminary phase of ideation and expression.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 17:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)