Talk:An Internet of Everything?/Access to Knowledge and Data in Everyday Life

Last-minute comments
Comment here: It seems so quiet on here, is that the silence before the storm?
 * I just wanted to point out that the last third of the references are not in alphabetical order. If everyone could make sure to put them where they belong, that would be great - doing that alone I think I would become crazy! I think it would be good to have the references in a way so they're easy to track. Good luck for the last couple of hours! Rosane linde (discuss • contribs) 14:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I was just fixing some links while you were doing this. I don't know if they were saved now :( Two minds thinking alike here... 139.153.66.116 (discuss) 14:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

ːːPS That was me ̴but my keyboard is weirdChickpeanut (discuss • contribs) 14ː52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)}}
 * Oh great! I gave up after sorting half of it and you did the rest, teamwork all the way ;) Rosane linde (discuss • contribs) 15:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * sorry I just now understood that my editing blocked yours :/ so sorry! but it looks great now!! so all is good!Rosane linde (discuss • contribs) 15:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think it kept both to a degree, so that was lucky :D --Chickpeanut (discuss • contribs) 15:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I explained most of the terms in my text, should I still put the definitions in the glossary? Askoelsche (discuss • contribs) 15:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

If you've covered them in-text its probably OK, but if you think they are a bit complicated or could use a longer explanation then go for it! It can't hurt to have a large glossary D man choo (discuss • contribs) 16:22, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Contributors
Hey everyone, this is the 'official' contributors list for this chapter, created in order for us to communicate more easily. If your group got this topic, please add your username below. Of course, other Wikibooks users are more than welcome to contribute, too! --Chickpeanut (discuss • contribs) 10:50, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey all!! Hannah here. I posted the first chunk on the page. Feel free to read at your liesure. I'm going back now to fix my formatting and references and things - I got a bit tired while I was writing it so figured I'd write the whole thing and then change the formatting later. It's still rough and I still have to add the actual cases I'm working on, but I think I summarized the connection to open access quite well? Let me know if you want me to change anything! I'll make sure I add/edit/change as we go further. :) Hfk667 (discuss • contribs) 16:22, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Chickpeanut
 * 2) Rosane linde
 * 3) Hfk667
 * 4) Wecandobetter
 * 5) Askoelsche
 * 6) Christiejayne123
 * 7) Jackdaly96
 * 8) kacollins95
 * 9) chloetansey
 * 10) Sirrinari
 * 11) Kirstyyy smith (discuss • contribs)
 * 12) D man choo
 * 13) Ted 95 (discuss • contribs) 13:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 14) CwazyChris (discuss • contribs) 14:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 15) Alan Chalmers (discuss • contribs) 15:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 16) Katka.wicz
 * 17) Unprofesh (discuss • contribs) 15:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 18) AdamB95 (discuss • contribs) 15:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 19) Just...Urg Graham (discuss • contribs) 17:30, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 20) PurpleHan (discuss • contribs) 17:34, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 21) Toriettaaw (discuss • contribs)
 * 22) AdilAslam1 (discuss • contribs)
 * 23) Cloudon14 (discuss • contribs)
 * 24) Mhairisedgwick
 * 25) stevo_sc
 * 26) QueenElsaIngrid (discuss • contribs) 00:35, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 27) User:NicholeWhite13 NicholeWhite13 (discuss • contribs) 13:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Checking/Posting on the Page
Hey all! I figured I'd start this section for discussion about what's posted. Please check over what I wrote in the next couple days and give me some feedback, especially the preface. I found the section in the article I was reading and I thought it fit really nicely as an opener, so I wrote it up fast. I have no problem with constructive criticism and I also don't mind if you get right in there and start messing with it - just please don't delete my time-stamps. Thanks. Hfk667 (discuss • contribs) 19:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't you want to include your external links at the end of the chapter, rather than at the end of your section? Makes more sense to me to have them all in the same place. Chickpeanut (discuss • contribs) 22:51, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I was going to do that - I figured I'd keep them under my post and move them when more information and external links have been gathered. Hfk667 (discuss • contribs) 09:15, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

.... we also seem not to have that many nice things to say about access - I think we ALL went for the negative parts of access, lol. Thoughts? Hfk667 (discuss • contribs) 19:22, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hey - can you or anyone else tell me if my posts are okay? I feel like I have too much information and it reads too much like an essay. I'd love some feedback, please. Hfk667 (discuss • contribs) 21:26, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey, preface (if preface is the first thing on the page) looks good. Especially the last paragraph is grand. The beginning of it is pretty technical but the last paragraph ties everything together, so good job. Sirrinari (discuss • contribs) 11:38, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Whoever wrote intro chapter, that is looking good. Good idea to have bulletpoints stating what we are gonna talk about. Now just everyone write the summary of your section! I don't think all of them are in there Yet. Sirrinari (discuss • contribs) 11:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

How are folks getting on with main concepts? I've roughly finished all my parts so I'm more than happy to help there? Chloetansey (discuss • contribs) 16:41, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi guys, firstly i would like to apologise for my lack of contribution and communication within this group. due to being off ill and having a problem with my internet connection and being unorganised i have been unable to add anything substantial to the page. Everyone's efforts are great and the page looks amazing. I have now left it to the complete last minute to contribute anything and was wondering if there are any areas that are needing contribution or should i just choose a topic which doesn't seem to have a lot of work already done on it and add some comments? any advice would be hugely appreciated. NicholeWhite13 (discuss • contribs) 14:26, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey everyone! I've uploaded most of my topics by now and I would be very happy if you could read through it. Feel free to correct any grammar or spelling mistakes! Askoelsche (discuss • contribs) 15:54, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Referencing Aesthetics
Hello all! I've been thinking about refercing a bit, and even though we've already only got a few references listed, it's already fairly messy. After a visit in the reading room, I though that we should maybe use short citations in our chapter, as described here. I applied it to my section preliminarily to see how it looks. Please leave me a comment if you like or dislike this type. If you've already familiarised yourself with the referencing markup it will be a difference, but nothing majorly disrupting. If you haven't, this will probably make it easier.

Essentially, you include only author and date (and page number if necessary) in the reference box (this one: ), and include a full reference seperately at the end of the text, without page number specified.

Please leave me your comments and feel free to beat me up if you hate it! Chickpeanut (discuss • contribs) 21:51, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean! I'll do my best to fix my sections. Hfk667 (discuss • contribs) 09:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I edited up my notes but I thought it may be good for the very first time you reference something in footnotes you should write out the whole citation. That makes it easier to connect it to the references. That's what you do on normal essays and I figure it's what looks the neatest and cleanest. Thoughts?Hfk667 (discuss • contribs) 12:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This might be a good idea, nonetheless it gets messy quickly when you start editing your section again and suddenly the order changes, etc, or someone else uses the same refence and so on... You could actually use ibid. in the footnotes, too, but again, it gets messy very quickly... Rosane linde suggested that we move the footnotes so every section has them individually, and then include the full reference list at the end of the chapter. Ideas?Chickpeanut (discuss • contribs) 13:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Seems good to me. Editing references is something we can do at the very end once everyone has everything inputted, too. Hfk667 (discuss • contribs) 18:49, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey I've seen you added your secction, WOW! It looks great. On the note on referencing, would you mind adding your academic references to the reference list at the bottom of the chapter? In this case, you could also use short citations within the text, but of course that's a lot of work, I understand that. Would just help clean up the footnotes. My 5 cents here :) -- Chickpeanut (discuss • contribs) 16:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll try to change it. I wasn't sure how we would do it so I just threw everything on the page :) Sirrinari (discuss • contribs) 15:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * sorry to bother but since I have not actually used page numbers, but chapters and section, so should I put the name of the chapter into the short citation as well? I figured it will be very messy if I do not, since I use several chapters from same books (which some are edited). I'll add the chapters separately to the reference list as well. Hope that is okay. Sirrinari (discuss • contribs) 16:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have acutally the same problem, so I just included the chapters as separate references! As it's a different author, I think that should be fine. Looking very good!! Chickpeanut (discuss • contribs) 17:11, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it works well like that. The point is, after all, to be able to point out the source in a simple way. Btw. I apologise for my previous message's messiness, only now understood that it was very illogical. Sirrinari (discuss • contribs) 17:45, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

And Some of your references are only links, maybe you want to name them as well? -- Chickpeanut (discuss • contribs) 16:48, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * sure will do, now my section is just notes after all.. about our discussion this morning: seen as you outlined how to reference if in your way so neatly above, I think let's leave it to that style for the sake of simplicity ;) Rosane linde (discuss • contribs) 17:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought so, that's cool. My brain is fried from looking at too many screens... Chickpeanut (discuss • contribs) 17:05, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * IT LOOKS GREAT. I haven't read it yet, but well done. Hfk667 (discuss • contribs) 18:49, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Cheers, I think I have to proof read it again, but that section should be pretty much done now. Good luck with your section, and for everyone else as well! Sirrinari (discuss • contribs) 15:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Pictures??
Hey all - some other groups have pictures on their page and it looks really interactive and neat. I have a picture I really want to post on the page, but I'm not sure if it's allowed under creative commons copyright. I've seen it on many different articles and pages, big and small alike. There's countless just like it. Thoughts? Hfk667 (discuss • contribs) 10:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Never mind! I joined Wikipedia Commons -- there's countless pictures available on here! Hfk667 (discuss • contribs) 10:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * This search ( CC Search ) will be invaluable to find photos you can use. If it leads you to Wikipedia commons, you just copy the file-name of the image into the image box and add a brief description and click 'insert'. Then voila! Your picture is added and it lets the user know you added it so no copyright issues. :) Hfk667 (discuss • contribs) 10:14, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Glad this was addressed before I even saw it, but I think pictures will really help liven up page a bit! I'm still working on my section but will be sure to add pictures once im done, thanks for the tips! CwazyChris (discuss • contribs) 15:25, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Glad it helped! :) Hfk667 (discuss • contribs) 10:31, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Structure
One of the groups has their information set up really nicely in a table that is easy to read. I thought I would give it a try, maybe things organized this way will be better. Kacollins95 (discuss • contribs) 12:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I think 1.9 'Hierarchy of Information' belongs as a subtopic to 1.3 'Barriers to access' Chickpeanut (discuss • contribs) 16:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hey guys - do you think your section(s) about Advantages/Disadvantages of Open Access should come first in the line-up for the Wiki-page? I think it's good to show the advantages and disadvantages on a user before going deeply in depth about the ways people monetize or abuse access to information. Seems a bit grim to start off with, at least to me. We need to talk about some places access flows freely and why that's (obviously) a good thing to start, don't you think? Talk about it among yourselves as a little group? Hfk667 (discuss • contribs) 19:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * yeah I think this would be a good way to start or finish the page, a good little summary of overall pros and cons. Have people got anything concrete for this yet? Im doing my research just now but I want to make sure theres no overlaps. CwazyChris (discuss • contribs) 14:50, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey everyone! I acutally had the same though and I totally agree that we should move the broader categories to the top (i.e. Advantages & Disadvantages) & then go into depth with Barriers, Monetisation, Illegal Access, and Web 2.0. It's not all negative, Mine has a lot of positive things about democratic values being supported by hacking & leaking, and Web 2.0 is also very positive! Chickpeanut (discuss • contribs) 16:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Lol, great, I just wanted to make sure there was some positives because mine is all sort of a downer. And I agree with what everyone else said! Hfk667 (discuss • contribs) 20:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Chickpeanut,Hi guys, I was thinking of doing a bit on the always on culture and effects, was just wondering at the number bit why it says N/A? Has this topic this fallen into another category now? Mhairisedgwick (discuss • contribs) 13:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed, the topic is now under Disadvantages of Unlimited Access and actually quite a few people are working on it. I'm going to reply to your other message in depth in a minute. Chickpeanut (discuss • contribs) 16:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Just doing a bit on social media and the levels of information people share and hide as opposed to when social medias were first introduced AdilAslam1 (discuss • contribs) 14:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Mark Up Questions
Unless you want to go straight to the reading room, you can also ask here or post tips that you have discovered. Chickpeanut (discuss • contribs) 21:27, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Tips
To address one or several users directly (so they get a notification) use: (replace my name) Will look like this: To just generally link to someone, use: (replace my name) Will look like this: Chickpeanut To make a list, use: for numbered lists for just a list Will look like this: To make a table, use: to break to the next row
 * 1) One
 * 2) Two
 * Something
 * Something else
 * Sub-point

Will look like this: Chickpeanut (discuss • contribs) 21:27, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

To make a quote embedded in the text, use this wikipedia page.

So, for example, if you follow the quote template on that site it will look like this:

"Cry "Havoc" and let slip the dogs of war."

- William Shakespeare

Enjoy! Make sure to cite the quote like normal. Hfk667 (discuss • contribs) 10:26, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey do you think you can help me put a picture in my section. I had success with the google picture, but for some reason I'm having the hardest time with a graph of mine. Here is the link of the picture http://www.hosttuner.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/search-engines.bmp. If you're not sure no big deal! Kacollins95 (discuss • contribs) 17:14, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a bit different when you add a picture that's already in Commons (like the Google picture) and a picture that's online outside of Wikipedia. Firstly, you have to make sure you're allowed to use the graph. That sounds dumb, but you cannot upload anything to WikiBooks that's got a copyright. If you're unsure, maybe just make the graph yourself in Excel and upload your own version. If you're sure, you can upload it to WikiBooks. But the procedure is not entirely clear to me. In the left column, you can find a link "Upload File" in the "Tools" section. Newbies (like us) have restrictions on whether they can upload a file, so you might not be able to do it. If you are, it should be a fairly linear process from there. As soon as it's in the commons, you can just insert it into the WikiBook like you did with the Google logo. Hope this helps! Chickpeanut (discuss • contribs)

Convenient Answer to Nearly All Questions
I was talking to a guy on the Reading Room with a question I had about mark-up back at the beginning of this project and he linked me a Wikibook ABOUT Wikibooks! This book is full of every answer to nearly every question you can think of. There's a general "How to Edit a Wikibook" section and a more specific section on "Wiki-Markup". I've been using it constantly.

There is even a fancy page for "Advanced Techniques" and a section about adding images.

Please use it to your heart's content! Click here to access. Hfk667 (discuss • contribs) 10:32, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Ideas for chapter sub-topics
Hello all! Especially us Wookies. I'm tagging you here to open this discussion page because we got the email that we have obtained our first choice. Score!! So, how do we want to divide this up? I know we're all heading off on wonderful breaks. Some of us are going to some great places and won't have internet - *cough*I'm going to Ireland*cough* - so I figured we should start chatting about what we want and how we want to divide this up as soon as possible. I sort of wanted to do a section on "Limited Access to Knowledge and Data" - I figured I could talk about laws that are being passed in America (and perhaps in the UK) that limit people's access and corporations that are making money off of paying for data (like smartphones, internet service providers...)? I don't know. Maybe there could be a section about Always-On culture with smartphones and things, etc. etc.? Let's start brainstorming so when we part for break we can at least have a good think about what we want to do when we come back. :) What are some sections people want to focus on that pertain to Access??? Hfk667 (discuss • contribs) 18:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I think your topic is a good idea! I would either summarise it under 'Limited Access' or even 'Legislation'. I could also think about laws that give you more access, like Freedom of Information acts, etc. I don't know how much these stretch into the domain of the internet, but it's certainly a point to think about. Secondly, I think we should do what last year's groups did and add a topic about important academics/contributors in this field. If anyone reads about a particular person, they can add a note to the chapter. That's everything from me. I will be on my way out tomorrow. Hopefully I will be able to take one or two resources with me. --

Chickpeanut (discuss • contribs) 10:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I like your idea of Legislation. I'll start brainstorming before I leave on my trip and start writing down some preliminary information on both sides, pros and cons. I'll do some more looking into that and start working on a section! :) Hfk667 (discuss • contribs) 18:42, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I like both of your ideas. To the first one: To start this "chapter" we could collect some generel facts about the limited access in different countries and then explain the situation in america as an example. To the second: I think we can connect these laws with the internet if we try to find out to what extent does the limited/unlimitted access to knowledge e.g. fullfill the freedom of information. Askoelsche (discuss • contribs) 11:16, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Good points. I'll look into this further. I like formatting it around the laws in general first and then going deeper into each one. Hfk667 (discuss • contribs)


 * I didn't read your post before opening the Preface section, so we had the same thought there! --Chickpeanut (discuss • contribs) 14:49, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * And I found some good and interesting books in the library that concern your topic. They are called: "Access Denied", "Access Controlled" and "Access Contested" (more Asia-based). --Chickpeanut (discuss • contribs) 14:49, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Is it okay if I use the Access Controlled book Chickpeanut mentioned? Or do you want to use it? It seems to be great for my topic! Rosane linde (discuss • contribs) 13:15, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a book! :) Feel free to use it for your section and I'll use it for mine. I doubt we're going to get points taken away because we both used the same source! BUT if you could put some of your notes on here like I did, I'd very much appreciate it. There's no reason we both have to try to read the same chapter of the book - if you see anything relevant, please post it here so I (and the rest of the group) can benefit from it too? Especially if the library only has one copy and I can't access it if you have it. Thanks! Hfk667 (discuss • contribs) 13:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I just asked because, yeah, there's only one copy in the library. No worries, I'll make my notes accessible here! That's a really good idea actually, minimizes work! :) Rosane linde (discuss • contribs) 13:37, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I have gathered a few online sources but this is wonderful, thank you! I'll look at these immediately. Hfk667 (discuss • contribs) 16:30, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I will absolutely have a look at these when you're gone. Thank you for the resources! Hfk667 (discuss • contribs) 18:42, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Asia, especially China should be interesting country in terms of limited access so those books are most likely very good point to start! Sirrinari (discuss • contribs) 11:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

--

Okay, one last one before I shut up for the week :) I had another think through of ideas for sub-topics:
 * Free access (unlimited access) - e.g. the internet being free in general, what you can find online (eBooks, and other stuff that's digitalised)
 * ^^^ That wikipedia article about communism could REALLY be useful for this one!!! Hfk667 (discuss • contribs) 11:45, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Open source and conversation in class (March 1rst) fits in here too... I dunno if I can take that and everything else, but if someone else wants to tackle this section, that's where I'd start. Hfk667 (discuss • contribs) 11:06, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Limited access - e.g. legislation, certain countries, access to broadband, etc.
 * Legal access - freedom of information?
 * Illegal access - hacking, Wikileaks, whistleblowing?
 * Development of access (in a historical way?)
 * Maybe how the greater access impacts politics / economy? People being more informed about their purchases or who they vote for, people being more connected, good & bad impacts on modern democracy - is that already off topic?
 * Always On Culture? <-- it seems pretty straightforward but like - access means literal access, which means the ability to pull a phone out of your back pocket at any moment. Hfk667 (discuss • contribs) 11:58, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we have to include all ideas, but that's just my last-minute brain racking. I really like the hacking idea and other illegal methods of accessing data. I might actually do that for a topic... --Chickpeanut (discuss • contribs) 20:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Wonderful, you can do that. My 'Legislation' section will go under Legal Access, maybe? Or Limited Access. I don't mind doing another section too - I'll start doing some preliminary notes and reading and such. Hfk667 (discuss • contribs) 11:46, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

--

Hi all I'm joining this conversation as well. I have been trying to figure out what things are included in Access to Knowledge and Data in Everyday Life. Others already mentioned Legal aspect and Always on culture, I thought I'll throw few more ideas for topics. I was doing some quick research and my mind put the information into this sort of categories.


 * Legal aspect
 * Access to internet (gadgets and tech, going mobile, internet is not available for everyone)
 * Always on culture (edutainment, history, now)
 * World Wide Web (web 1.0, web 2.0, google (Chickpeanut has linked a book "Googlization of Everything" later on this page and it has tons of material)
 * User generated content (I think this is relevant, but do you agree? I'd like to work on that topic)

Sirrinari (discuss • contribs) 13:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

'''I like all this brainstorming going on here! I will add my ideas here''' Unforntunately for me it's the same as for Chickpeanut, I have very very limited internet access where I am right now, so most of the productive work is going on in my head rather than on here, but I seized an opportunity and here I am with my ideas:

Our topic made me think in a different direction than what everyone mentioned before; I am really interested about the fact that our access to knowledge online is organised and managed by, for example google: when you want to find out more about something, the way the results on google are organised influences what you will learn: the more popular sites, or the sites which pay more money to google to be on the top of the list OR the ones that have enough money to pay for a well designed and easy to handle website, are the ones you will be most likely to click on. this makes even the access to knowledge a sphere influenced by capitalism (I know, I always think a lot about capitalism, it is just a topic I am really interested in!) so you have to actively look for alternatives and spend a lot of time to get a broad and more unbiased knowledge of the topic, the access to knowledge is organised by those who have the power or the money to do this. There is a certain hierarchy. I'm also thinking about adverts on the internet that link to websites which pay to be on your news feed on facebook.

Another Idea: the way people present knowledge, as I shortly mentioned for websites, is important to how far the information will reach, I am also thinking about different media here (eg video, ..). To sum up, I would like to examine the hierarchies behind the creation and distribution of knowledge.

What do you guys think about this?

Generally I really like the ideas so far, I am especially interested in the hacking and also the edutainment you mentioned, ! As for User generated content, what exactly would you like to talk about ? Do you mean basically what we do here, create wikimedia content for example? Ormore generally the fact that everyone creates knowledge online? then you could sum it up as the access to the creation of knowledge which merges in smoothly with my topic that I outlined above! Rosane linde (discuss • contribs) 16:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I thought that our access to knowledge and data is not only restricted to access to ready made information but that we can also create the data and contribute the knowledge of others. So in that way UGC, Wiki projects and collaboration in the net are linked to this topic. I like how you sum it up: the access to the creation of knowledge. Your Idea sounds good. "Googlitzation of everything" talks about those things you mentioned so it is worth checking out. Sirrinari (discuss • contribs) 10:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I started work on organizing the book page. I tried to organize it into topics and subtopics underneath those. Feel free to change or add, I just thought this way it looked a bit more organized. Kacollins95 (discuss • contribs) 12:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Approved Topics?
Hello again everyone, great ideas floating around here. I've taken the freedom to organise the main ideas for topics on the main page:
 * Definitions
 * Limited Access / Legislation/barriers to access Rosane linde (discuss • contribs) 12:42, 1 March 2016 (UTC) - <-- yeah this is what I'm doing Hfk667 (discuss • contribs) 11:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Other countries or something?
 * COPYRIGHT. I'm going to focus on this under my legislation section (much of the laws [passed/contested] have to do with copyright. Hfk667 (discuss • contribs) 11:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Mediated Access: The hierarchy of information on the internet - Rosane linde •  Rosane linde (discuss • contribs) 12:42, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Illegal Access - considering the effects of unlimited online information (e.g. on democracy & the economy) - Chickpeanut (discuss • contribs)
 * Wikileaks
 * Hacking
 * Web 2.0 - Sirrinari (discuss • contribs)
 * User-Generated Content
 * The Creation of Knowledge on the Internet?
 * Always-On Culture (and general ease to access the internet in Western society)
 * Access to the internet in different countries - an Introduction (whatever has not been talked about under legislation, I suppose)
 * Access to Knowledge and Information - A Historical Perspective
 * Would the conversation mentioned today (March 1) in class be good for this? I don't mind taking this as well. Hfk667 (discuss • contribs) 11:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Key Theorists
 * Glossary (for everyone to work on)
 * Glossary (for everyone to work on)

Feel free to change the names, add or merge topics, etc. If people are happy with the general idea and want to start going ahead, mark your name under the topic. And we can also start new discussion sections on every topic.

..

I also think that we should add more topics as we move into the field, and collect theorists and key texts we encounter, and build up the page like this. For Always-On culture, I think we should make sure no other group is also talking about the same topic, and try to relate it back to the idea of accessibility... just a thought --Chickpeanut (discuss • contribs) 14:29, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I put my name on Web 2.0 and User-Generated Content / The Creation of Knowledge on the Internet. There should be few more of us working on this thing (some 28 people) so we might need to share some topics unless people come up with new ones. I really like the idea of having key theorists listed out as well. It could be another "topic" where everyone can add the people who are relevant for their topics. I noticed some groups last year had done it and it looks neat because they do not need to start talking about the theorists within the actual topic but can link them into it. Sirrinari (discuss • contribs) 14:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I've just realised that Illegal Access has a great deal to do with democracy, so I think I will actually merge the two topics. Maybe we can split them into 'Hacking' & 'Wikileaks' if we need more topics. I definitely agree with Sirrinari that there is a lot more people which means everyone's contribution should be fairly low, if everyone gets involved.

What do you think about a topic on advantages / disadvantages? Or shall we include that within the subtopics? What does everybody think about making a definitions section? Or shall we stick to the Glossary? --Chickpeanut (discuss • contribs) 16:49, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello everyone. Sorry I have been MIA this week, I had very little internet all week, but I would love jump in on this assignment. I see we have 7 topics layer out so far. Does everyone pretty much have an idea of what they want to do/ are we still looking for more topics? I thought maybe it would be interesting to compare the access of knowledge in different time periods. The internet is a fairly new thing and constantly changing so that could be a different topic. People haven't always had a world of information accessible at their fingertips. This could also fit under "Always on Culture" which I would love to work on. Also their are 10 of us so far so does that mean a topic a person or are we all contributing to multiple topics? I am happy to jump in anywhere I am needed Kacollins95 (discuss • contribs) 17:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I think we can certainly add that topic (just done so) and as many more as we want! For 28 people, 10 topics don't seem like a lot, so if anyone wants to work on something that has not been mentioned, feel free to do so. I'd generally vote for 1-3 people per big topic, especially if there is overlap, but everyone should add to other topics if they read anything relevant. That would mean, too, that we need around 14 topics or 28 sub-topics in total, distributed somehow, so people can have their own little sphere to work on. --Chickpeanut (discuss • contribs) 17:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I think at this point people should just start generating content on whatever interests them (in the list we've consolidated or whatever else they feel fits) and then we start smoothing and editing as we get closer to the deadline. Right now we just need to start filling in information, you know?Hfk667 (discuss • contribs) 11:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Should we split the topics up so each group of 5 is working on the same topics? Kacollins95 (discuss • contribs) 11:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea to me. I haven't been doing work on this so far as I was away/ill during reading week but I think aslong as everyone has something to do and is aware of it then that's beneficial to everyone. CwazyChris (discuss • contribs) 14:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi everyone, literally just thought to check the discussion page for the project. I definitely agree with, splitting the topics up seems to be the way to go. I'm just in the process of reading over what's been discussed on the page and hopefully I'll be contributing a little more regularly. Alan Chalmers (discuss • contribs) 15:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey everyone, I'm in the same boat as the gentleman above and agree with the idea of splitting up equally the topics that everyone has set out so far, I'm going to make a stab at regularly contributing towards 'The hierarchy of information on the internet' if that doesn't impede on anyone else's work. Also separate discussion pages for each section would definitely be ideal. AdamB95 (discuss • contribs) 16:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey guys. Just caught on to this discussion page as well, glad others have been more proactive. I tip my hat to you. Will start contributing ASAP. Ted 95 (discuss • contribs) 16:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello everyone, we're the group CoolCats. We'll be contributing on this wikibook (we're a wee bit late). In terms of dealing with the different groups contributing on this, are we going to assign one group to each topic? or make a more free for all? PurpleHan (discuss • contribs) 17:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

In terms of organizing the topics, it looks like people have already started working on topics so if we switch to one group per topic, so people will have to start over again, so I say we stick with the system going now. Just my opinion, but does that make sense to anyone? :) PurpleHan (discuss • contribs) 18:13, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello everyone who joined us! Well done for digging through the discussion. Yes, as PurpleHan mentioned, you just pick what topic you fancy, regardless of which group you're in. If someone is already working on it, just get talking about how to split it best. I'm sure there is plenty to talk about for everyone. Also, feel free to add new topics and sub-topics where you see fit, it doesn't matter if you're working on it or not, as we're a lot of people, and the more topics we can talk about, the better! Who ever claimed a section on the Structure section is editing it, so make sure your name is down there, too. And please please please add your resources to the list to save us a massive headache. Any questions regarding the markup, just ask. I'll make a separate section for technical stuff shortly. Let's do this! Chickpeanut (discuss • contribs) 21:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey guys, I don't know if some of you have seen it yet. I had the idea to work on the youth protection topic, you know the whole discussion about children having access to pornographic or violent material etc. What do you think about that? Would it be a subtopic of the disadvantage chapter or a completle new one? I really want to work on that topic, I think it's very interesting and fits to our general chapter topic very well! Askoelsche (discuss • contribs) 12:23, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey - I like this idea! If you talk about legislation blocking kids from being able to access that information, it could fit under our legislation section. If not, it could fit somewhere else. I say write it, post it on the page where you think it fits, and we can move it later if needed. Hfk667 (discuss • contribs) 17:17, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah I think it would also fit there. What do theothers think about it? Maybe I just start collecting some information and depending on what I can find out I'll decide where it fits most. But how do I put it in the topic table someone created so everyone knows I wnat to work on that topic when I don't know yet where to put it in the end? Askoelsche (discuss • contribs) 13:15, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Or maybe I could split the topic up. I could write something about how governments try to protect children by banning websites etc under the legislation section and under the disadvantage section how those websites have an effect on children! Askoelsche (discuss • contribs) 12:12, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey guys! Now that I have collected the information I need and started writing I decided to split my topic up. I will write about offensive content and it's possible effects on children under the disadvantage part and I will also write about youth protection in the context of age limits, organizations and parental controls, but I cannot decide whether it fits better under the limited access or the barriers of access part. What do you think where does it fit better? Askoelsche (discuss • contribs) 15:41, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * {reply to|Askoelsche}} Seen as it's about blocking access I would say it fits better under limited access, maybe you could just post in their section and ask if they agree?Rosane linde (discuss • contribs) 16:58, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I havent posted on here yet guys, I'm aware I'm a wee bit late to the party! Was hoping there was still some room on the project to work on. I would love to do a bit on the disadvantages or advantages of Unlimited Access to Information as I see there might be some room to work on there. Would that be OK with everyone?! Thanks! D man choo (discuss • contribs) 20:46, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Yeah I like it, it seems to merge with always on culture, I believe we have a table that is distributing untaken subjects somewhere and I think someone is doing always on culture! so just contact him, i'd suggest! Rosane linde (discuss • contribs) 13:27, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * {reply to|D man choo}} look under the "effects of unlimited information" section! Rosane linde (discuss • contribs) 13:29, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Recent Posts - w/c 07/03/2016
Hi guys, I have caught up with this entire page, I plan on contributing to most topics, I am planning on contributing on the main concepts aswell. If there is any specific one anyone would like me to do or help with that would be fine! Just let me know. Cheers. Or if anyone in my group wants to get in contact with me we could divide topics to certain people that would be fine aswell!Cloudon14 (discuss • contribs) 11:41, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey I think it would be a great help if you could write the Main Concepts section. It seems like a very neglected part of the chapter, so you're free to edit as you want! Could you add your name to the structure table in this case, so we know that you're editing it? Thanks --Chickpeanut (discuss • contribs) 16:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Chickpeanut Hi guys, I am part of the D mans group who is also part of this page. I am very behind on this as I have been away and not had the best access to wifi! I have read through the entire group discussion page and there seems like a lot of topics are already covered. Was thinking of adding into some that already exist as well as creating my own. Is that okay with everyone? does anyone have any topics that they feel they need extra help with or more contributions for? Myself and stevo_sc were thinking of doing a section in the negative effects about misused identity and online identity theft when considering how we use information online and accessing the dangers on this? has anyone already written about this as on yet? Mhairisedgwick (discuss • contribs) 14:03, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Mhairisedgwick In addition to this we were thinking of talking about an advantage of information overload being the added security from police in crime prevention, such as police trolling information to prevent and find those responsible for terrorism and other crimes. It seems like no one is talking about that but if anyone is let me know, thanks. Stevo sc (discuss • contribs) 14:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Stevo_sc Steven in relation to the topics we just mentioned I found some pretty good websites to start our research from http://www.nc4.com/Pages/Police-departments-invest-in-social-media-tracking-to-prevent-crimes-and-catch-criminals.aspx, http://source.southuniversity.edu/crime-and-social-media-sites-catching-criminals-and-learning-to-avoid-them-75131.aspx let me know what you think. Mhairisedgwick (discuss • contribs) 14:27, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Mhairisedgwick yeah they look really useful especially the police investment in social media, we could maybe a have a sub category for social media? Stevo sc (discuss • contribs) 15:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey everyone I think Identity fraud, if you mean by that the crime, is covered in Illegal Access, which means if you'd like to talk about it, please write a short piece under the section 'Other Illegal Access'. The advantages of access are discussed further down, and you can add 'Security' as subtopic into that. Nonetheless, Wecandobetter is already looking at Cyber-Terrorism, so best not to stray too far into his domain and concentrate on police work around crime prevention & detection using the internet. Maybe you can also pick up on the actual likeliness that police will be able to prevent crime through the internet (apparently, it's not that high)? Please use the following mark up for any further questions: , and I will get a notification. Good luck! --Chickpeanut (discuss • contribs) 16:27, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for the reply, yeah we'll look into it and focus more on the police side. Stevo sc (discuss • contribs) 17:55, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Chickpeanut Hi I am part of the D mans group too and was thinking maybe there could be a section on the different ways to actually access the internet? For example with the advancements in technology we have computers, laptops, phones, ipads etc. So we are constantly able to access data and knowledge. I am not sure if this has already been suggested but I thought it may be useful? As Mhairisedgwick said earlier I was also wondering if there were any particular topics that people need any extra help with? As I know a lot of the topics have already been taken. Kirstyyy smith (discuss • contribs) 21:17, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Phew! Good question. The best thing is, look into the structure bit if anything isn't taken. Otherwise, best thing to do is just ask! Whatever topic interests you, feel free to go for it and talk to others who do the topic if they need anything covered. I do like the idea of different modes of access, you could probably even write that into the Main Concepts section and explain what we mean generally by 'access', including contexts, technology types, and levels of mediation. What do you think? --Chickpeanut (discuss • contribs) 00:01, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Yeah I'll have a look through and see if there is anything to add to any of the existing topics. Yeah that's a good idea to add it to the main concepts section as I feel as though there will be a lot to say. I think that's a great idea! Kirstyyy smith (discuss • contribs) 14:57, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * One more thing to add! Me and the rest of my group were also discussing maybe talking about the different forms of internet, for example we have Internet Explorer, Google Chrome, Firefox etc. So we have so many ways to access the web, what do you think of this idea? Kirstyyy smith (discuss • contribs) 14:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, if you can include, include it! But keep in mind the deadline is Friday 5pm and you need to give yourself enough time to fix referencing and markup. As content is only 20% of the overall grade, my gut feeling is to finish one topic well, and then see if you can fit in more info. If you believe it should be included, include it! For the idea of talking about different web browsers, this can maybe also go into the Main Concepts section..? It would be nice to have an umbrella topic about all the different types of access, to which browsers definitely belong. --21:10, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, check out the main concepts section in the discussion below! Chickpeanut (discuss • contribs) 21:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey guys, a topic i was writing that i wanted some opinions on was the breakthrough and evolution of social media and the levels of information that we share now in line with when social media was first introduced AdilAslam1 (discuss • contribs) 08:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi there, I guess I'm speaking for all here, and I wanted to let you know that you are very welcome to talk about any topic that interests you. Just see if there is an appropriate major topic already existing that you can add your section to - this way, it will look less messy overall. If you have any further questions, just post on here and we will do our best to help. Good luck, 21:10, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion
I also decided to add this discussion tab to organize the sharing of information between the people working on specific topics. Kacollins95 (discuss • contribs) 12:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I've moved this into larger topics as some topics have already started to be discussed. I hope this will avoid huge topics and lots of mess... I hope this was okay! Chickpeanut (discuss • contribs) 16:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

an observation...
Just a notice here, gang. As of this date, still no content on the book page, aside from a few headings! Should I be concerned? Get the book page populated asap - it's much harder to start writing from nothing than it is to add to and edit existing content, so with that in mind I would crack on with it, y'all. By the way, this discussion page is looking really rich! Lots of cool ideas floating around and being discussed, which means the content on the book page is likely to be solid, and the wiki tech aspects here are being used really well. That's all very encouraging. GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 16:16, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought I had something written by the 4th... I edited and accidentally deleted my timestamp - whoops! Can you see my post about copyright on the page? Hfk667 (discuss • contribs) 17:21, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey Hannah! Just letting you know, we're not supposed to use our signature on the actual book pages. It will show in your contributions what you have written if you're unsure about getting the credits for your part. --Chickpeanut (discuss • contribs) 15:39, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * oh awesome okay. I'll fix that now. :) thanks for letting me know. Hfk667 (discuss • contribs) 15:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Group Specific Discussion
Hello, so to organised us a bit more, I've added a new tab for group specific discussion for easier conversation within groups just so it doesn't get lost, in case we need to communicate. For us, we have a member who needs to work at home so it'll be easier to communicate with her. PurpleHan (discuss • contribs) 18:08, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

CoolCats
Hey kids, so far, as it stands we all just choose a topic to add our name to and write about it contributing with the other groups. PurpleHan (discuss • contribs) 18:08, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Guys, Just making sure you all have found a topic? Anyone need help brain storming? Or are you all on your path already? toriettaaw Just...Urg Graham Unprofesh QueenElsaIngrid PurpleHan (discuss • contribs) 16:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Who has written this above? Please add your signature! Chickpeanut (discuss • contribs) 15:41, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I did, I was still working on it because I needed to find everyone's username. I did add my tag, but it must have been deleted accidentally when I was switching tabs. Thanks for looking out :) PurpleHan (discuss • contribs) 16:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Cool, no bother! Chickpeanut (discuss • contribs) 16:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Preface?
I was wondering whether it would be appropriate to start with a preface to our chapter. Because having a (very brief) browse through books, I found that we should maybe make clear that we talk about Western culture (or even UK, being very specific), rather than e.g. China, where there is a lot to be said about access to data & information, or less developed countries where internet access is still emerging. Maybe we have other restrictions that we find? What do you guys think? --Chickpeanut (discuss • contribs) 14:43, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with this. Someone else could possibly take a section and briefly talk about the access to information in other places. It certainly wouldn't be a situation about "access to knowledge and data" unless you talk about places that have very restricted access, after all. That would be a good focus point for one member of our group or a different group to use. Parts of it could also fall under my legislation category. Hfk667 (discuss • contribs) 18:43, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I think that it is very important to introduce other countries and cultures as well. UK is not the only county in the world, so if we just can find decent information it would be worthwhile talking about access to data and knowledge in other places as well. Obviously this is called "An Internet of Everything" so internet is the main focus but it is good to mention that not everyone has internet and access to all the data online. (I am not in your group, but I understood that the groups do not matter when we start the project so we should all work together) Sirrinari (discuss • contribs) 11:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Maybe we could user other countries and cultures as examples and compare them to western countries or the UK, so we've got still the connection to the UK!? But when we do that we should concentrate on a few extrem examples or one countrie of each continent otherwise it will be to unclear and circumlocutory. Askoelsche (discuss • contribs) 13:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I like the idea of introducing different models by drawing links between other countries and UK. Like you said, compering. Sirrinari (discuss • contribs) 10:33, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * As I'm from the USA, I was going to add in some legislation about the US in my section. That will at least bring in the USA, but ultimately we don't differ much from the UK in terms of the internet (as developed, prospering, web-connected Western countries). Hfk667 (discuss • contribs) 16:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

We talked a LOT in class today about the early ages and hacking and "access to information" in the early days of computing technology. I think this should be mentioned in the preface, sort of like the ideas of computer and computing has almost always been with the concept of open knowledge accessible/editable by everyone. It seems like a good way to start? OR this could just be a history section. Brainstorming. Hfk667 (discuss • contribs) 11:04, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, great idea: so preface with computing and open access have always been connected and say which countries we will talk about and map up the issue that many people don't have internet access  but I think, as our chapter involves so many people and the themes are still evolving, we should write the preface at the end, otherwise we'll just have to keep editing it. I would suggest that we keep an outline or the chapter as a draft for the preface, where everyone can outline themes they address - so that in the end one person can easily write the preface. Rosane linde (discuss • contribs) 13:32, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * good thought. I'm all for it. Hfk667 (discuss • contribs) 14:04, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

HEY ALL. I FOUND A GREAT QUOTE BY THOMAS JEFFERSON AT THE BEGINNING OF MY ARTICLE. HE'S AN IMPORTANT PERSON. HERE IT IS:

""That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his conditions, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expandable over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation.""

- Thomas Jefferson

I just think that this is a powerful quote about transferring ideas and could be something awesome to start with at the beginning of our article. Hfk667 (discuss • contribs) 17:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Nice one! Chickpeanut (discuss • contribs) 20:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Introduction
I think we should put here a brief summary of all the topics, some smart quotes and be happy with it. What's everyone's opinion? Chickpeanut (discuss • contribs) 16:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

The quote I linked in the preface could also go here. Hfk667 (discuss • contribs) 17:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

The book I am reading ("Handbook of Internet Crime") has a very detailed history of the internet in it. I've included reading notes on my talk page --Chickpeanut (discuss • contribs) 12:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Main Concepts
Maybe some definitions would be appropriate?

Access Definition
Things to talk about:

Chickpeanut (discuss • contribs) 00:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Access contexts: Within different countries, as researcher of university (we get more access), etc.
 * Different technology: Computers, phones, etc.
 * Types of access: Blocked, mediated, controlled, open, etc.

Chickpeanut I am happy to write as much as I can on this section as I feel I have a lot to say. Kirstyyy smith (discuss • contribs) 12:24, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You're more than welcome as I don't think anyone else would fill this topic before tomorrow. Chickpeanut (discuss • contribs) 15:52, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I could add to this section aswell to try and fill it up for tomorrow QueenElsaIngrid (discuss • contribs) 17:36, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Information & Data
Things to talk about:

Chickpeanut (discuss • contribs) 16:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Definition of "data"
 * Knowledge vs. data?
 * Types of data: e.g. online vs. offline data, etc.
 * The value of data

I wrote definitions of knowledge, data and information. and information vs data which seemed more relevant than knowledge vs data. just check out the text! QueenElsaIngrid (discuss • contribs) 08:44, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Online and offline Open data

Limit Access/ Legislation
Hey everyone! My source that I'm looking at below ("the Creative Destruction of Copyright") has a LOT of information that goes far beyond just copyright. I'm reading and using it for my source but everyone else should check it out too Hfk667 (discuss • contribs) 10:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

'''Hello all who look at this page -- I'm changing it (I think) from Limited Access to Monetized Access, because that's more what my section is about: ways people make money off of other people's access. Let me know if that might be a problem?''' Hfk667 (discuss • contribs) 19:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Net Neutrality Debate
Opponents to net neutrality believe that it "hampers Internet Service Providers' abilities to ease congestion and maximize profits, leading to fewer investment incentives". Numerous bills came up in America's Congress and courts in early 2014 attempting to remove net neutrality and to try to rephrase how ISP's are labeled under Title II of the Communications Act, which ban throttling, blocking and paid prioritization.

Net neutrality is at the "core of the Internet's design", however. Large media corporations attempt to limit or "tame the Internet", but they don't understand that the internet's architecture favors users' choice over provider control. Tim Wu, author of the article Why Everyone was Wrong about Net Neutrality, argues that net neutrality could be repealed but it would need to have "appropriate government policy". This would never happen politically, he argues.

However, in the 2014 debate, strong pro-net neutrality players were slim to be found by large corporations. Comcast, Verizon, A.T.&T - all these major companies opposed net neutrality laws and wanted to see them lowered or removed entirely. The only people in support of pro-net neutrality laws were small activist groups (Electronic Frontier Foundation and Fight for the Future) and the users themselves, revealed by petitions and start-ups on Tumblr and Kickstarter.

^^^^ I still need to edit this. Hfk667 (discuss • contribs) 20:27, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Copyright/Access to Information
http://www.networkworld.com/article/2164315/lan-wan/4-internet-privacy-laws-you-should-know-about.html

Information about Copyright (what it is, where it began...)

 * 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act -- lays out enforcement measures (in USA?) -- allows companies (such as Youtube) to not face consequences for user-breaches in copyright -- user is faced with a warning and allowed to argue it (eventually bringing it to court)
 * [see below for some less specific Napster info]

Part IA: Introduction:
(left off page 267/page 6 of pdf) Hfk667 (discuss • contribs) 17:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * copyright law finds itself in a "digital dilemma" after the creation of the internet and other digital technology (napster263) - tech makes it possible for someone to make "unlimited number of perfect copies of music, books, or videos in digital form" and they are able to be spread "at the speed of light" (Nap 263) -- becomes a problem because people start NOT TO PAY
 * encryption, watermarks, and trusted systems, internet also allows the ability to control information and create new markets (264) -- careful to demolish a "careful balance between public good and private interest" (264)
 * argument between media producers, companies, and "copyright optimists" who want the copyright holders to control ALL distribution and use of digital information (264) -- wanted to create a "celestial jutebox" where a large amount of stuff is avaiable online (music, tv, movies, etc.) and people had to pay-per-use (265) -- not unlike netflix, tbh -- FILE SHARING/OPEN ACCESS = THEFT (265)
 * opponents argued for the "fair use doctrine" and the idea of public interest - that copyright shouldn't cover scholarship/scientific research (for the public good) and that we should be covered by free speech (265) -- where does a "new exception" to copyright in cyberspace need to be drawn?
 * Napster doesn't exactly fall under this - can't argue P2P file sharing "restricts free speech" or that she's downloading media for "scientific/scholarly research" (266) **people don't assume personal copying is violating copyright laws because they do NOT do it for commercial reasons - feel payment for each copy is a tax (266)
 * Should digital works be covered under copyright at all???? (266) before copyright was needed because distribution was costly and the writers and producers needed to make money back (obviously) (267) -- while ideas spread freely, books and albums have to come at a price to protect creators/distributors (267) -- WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THAT COST MOVES TO ZERO, THOUGH? should we still have to pay?
 * need to "unbundle" the idea of creation and distribution in order to embrace viral nature of media sharing (267) - when you remove copyright from distribution, you can't say that one needs to protect personal and non-commercial sharing of music, financial gain has nothing to do with copyright (especially if you pay musicians from alternate revenue streams (268)
 * not theft but "creative destruction" (269) - "incessantly revolutionizes the economic structure by incessantly destroying the old one and creating a new one" (269) -- eliminate the need for firms to distribute copyrighted work and for exclusive property rights to support creation

Part I: Digital Technology - how does it facilitate/restrict access to information?

 * digital technology can facilitate and improve copying but it can also restrict it -- information is reduced to binary digits and reproduces those same sights, sounds, and words as numbers (270) -- music is generated through measuring height of the sound wave, pictures are made by taking a bunch of dots and assigning them a number (creating color) and creating a sequence of those images creates video
 * frees content from the need for a tangible medium to distribute it (270) - digital media can be transferred without the need for a physical form (if it were wine, it wouldn't need a bottle, for example) - can be preserved in media drives, cds, usbs, or hard drives (271)
 * digital can create a perfect copy of the original - no more loss in quality or downgrading (271) - can be replicated countless times
 * copying is both inexpensive and simple, can be done by anyone - "information can be copied and stored on a hard drive in minutes or seconds" - home computers can make and distribute information at a billion bits per second (271)
 * digital copies are not bound by the need to create exact physical copies, the expense of the distribution, etc (272)
 * MP3 files, for example, can be burned from a CD (with CD quality sound) for about 3MB and shared through web pages, email, chat rooms, etc where they can save them, make new cds, share them some more, etc. (272)
 * Napster (and other P2P file sharing services) made it possible for people to directly access what other people have saved to their hard drives (once its been published to the network) - one burned CD suddenly becomes available for millions (273)
 * in 2001, a single blank CD could hold 20 albums worth of songs and a harddrive could hold over 1000 (40GB) - cost for the user to download or copy is practically 0 (274)
 * to copyright people, this is dangerous and a dark side of technology - anyone with internet access and a CD drive could be a potential distributor and client of these pirated songs (274)
 * also, however, allows greater control over distribution of information - "authors and publishers can have more, not less, control over their work" - computer code can be used to regulate behavior (274) and encryption can be used to prevent "unauthorized access to digital content" (275) - if distributed through a "trusted system" (with encryption), content creators could charge for copying a song and perhaps even charge users every time its played, limit locations, and program a file to expire after a certain date (275)
 * SDMI (Secure Digital Music Initiative) - an attempt by the Recording Initiative to force creators of consumer electrics to ONLY have players that don't allow copying/ripping of CDs to a harddrive or a portable player (unless they've paid for the privilege) - DVDs are the same (276)
 * Power to set music (and other forms of creative media) free or to lock it up - which direction should we take?? -- laws/politics, not tech, determine the outcome (276)

Notes by Hfk667 (discuss • contribs) 13:06, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Hfk667 hey how did you link your references in the book so the numbers pop up then they appear down at the bottom? Kacollins95 (discuss • contribs) 12:56, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hey - there's a pretty good copy-and-paste reference guide in the text editor itself. Just scroll up to the top (in the blue bar with the 'B' for Bold and 'I' for italics and so on) and there's the "Help" section? Click it and scroll down the list - the references option will have information on how you need to type it in the text. I just copied and pasted that and added in my information until I got familiar with it. Also, linked some good things under my 'Posting' section here on the discussion page. That'll be a good link. My last suggestion is the book I posted under the 'Tips' section - there's answers to nearly every question there. :) Hope that helps!! Hfk667 (discuss • contribs) 13:17, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Part II: Copyright Law/Debate
A. What is copyright?
 * First Principles of Copyright: United States Constitution gave Congress the power "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Author and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" -- promote progress through the law of copyright (276)
 * influenced by the fact that content is produced by the author's labor (277) - its a "bargain between the public and the author in which the public grants the author certain exclusive rights in exchange for access to her creation"
 * Works of authorship count as a "public good" - virtually inexhaustible ("it is possible at no cost for additional persons to enjoy the same unit of a public good") and its difficult to prevent people from enjoying the good (277)
 * however, worry about "free-riding" - for example, if enough people decide they can enjoy the benefits of, say, a lighthouse without paying for the costs, there will be no lighthouse (278)
 * tangibly putting a song or a story into technology facilitates the dissemination of those works to larger portions of the public while preserving teh artist's original expression (278) BUT if copies drive the price of the work down it threatens incentives to distribute work in teh first place (279)
 * copyright covers both the rights of the author but also the rights of the publisher as well - makes it possible to have a private market for works of authorship by artificially rendering these works scarce and exclusive (279)

B. Expand it? Hfk667 (discuss • contribs) 13:27, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * digital future is the way to perfect the copyright law's early aim of connecting authors to their audiences, free from interference by political sovereigns or the will of patrons
 * optimists think that the law should prevent digital technology from being used for uncompensated copying and should recognize author's rights to use tech to lock up digital content (279)
 * more copyright protection, the more incentives for creation, therefore the most public good - utilitarian (280)
 * trying to cover things that had historically been considered "free" under copyright's "fair use" doctrine - recording a tv show, copying a newspaper article to share wth people, or copying favorite songs into a new mix (280)
 * pay for each play like a "celestial jutebox" (280)
 * some believe the "fair use" doctrine should be narrowed because tech improves a copyright owner's ability to commodify intellectual property (280)
 * Digital Millennium Copyright Act passed by these fellows (282) -- even temporary electronic files are copies subject to copyright law - illegal to distribute or use any tech designed to circumvent tech measures protecting intellectual property regardless of if intentions were for fair use (282)

C. Fair Use Response (Limit Copyright)?
 * don't mind copyright as a protection of intellectual property - don't like the concept of expanding it like "copyright optimists do" (283) - should be limited by freedom of speech clause in the American Constitution
 * copyright "should be interpreted under a democratic paradigm that recognizes the need to maintain copyright as a means of supporting a "system of self-reliant authorship, diversity, and the dissemination of information" while "imposing limits consistent with copyright's democracy-enhancing function" (283)
 * feels that copyright should move over in lieu of a vibrant public domain and that if expansion of copyright should happen, it should "reflect what the public considers to be legitimate uses of works of authorship" (285)
 * copyright expansionists are NOT arguing for a way to deny the public access to their works but rather they want users to pay them for accessing their works (286)

Hfk667 (discuss • contribs) 15:00, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "By establishing a marketable right to the use of one's expression, copyright supplies the economic incentive to create and disseminate ideas" (286)
 * legislative process has been dominated (captured) by the copyright industry (286)
 * incentive-access paradox (professor lunney) - encouraging creativity comes at the expense of public access but allowing uncompensated access to works reduces the incentive to create future works (286)
 * courts reluctant to conclude that access outweighs the copyright incentives scheme -- possibly technology can break the paradox and provide public with access to works even for ordinary use, without diminishing the incentives for creation and dissemination (287)

SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act)] - United States, 2012

 * [http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/17/technology/sopa_explained/ -- " a proposed bill that aims to crack down on copyright infringement by restricting access to sites that host or facilitate the trading of pirated content." -- aka, content that is protected by copyright and not part of the Open-Sharing Network. This bill is extremely controversial and created a HUGE uproar in USA in 2012 (I remember it).
 * Targeted "rogue" overseas sites like torrentHub and PirateBay -- places where people could access recent/past media sources for free and download it -- couldn't shut them down entirely because they were based out of the USA so instead decided to force search engines to stop showing their content (search engines wouldn't show them, PayPal wouldn't submit payments, etc.)
 * Opponents argued it promotes censorship??? Potentially full of unintended consequences. Massive pushback by tech companies and supporters, stalling the bill in the House on January 20th -- fear that it put companies on the line for what their USERS upload -- wording states that sites could be in trouble if it "facilitates" copyright breaches (for ex. Youtube would be shut down immediately) -- Anti-SOPA group "NetCoalition" argues "The legislation systematically favors a copyright owner's intellectual property rights and strips the owners of accused websites of their rights."
 * payment/advertising sites would be notified if one of their customer sites was "dedicated to the theft of US property" -- forced to shut down services immediately to that site (losing both sides money)
 * big fight between Hollywood and Silicon Valley over rights of intellectual property vs rights of tech/online businesses. Supporters say that "online piracy leads to U.S. job losses because it deprives content creators of income" -- SOPA is meant to "revamp a broken copyright system" that "doesn't prevent criminal behavior". Opponents argue that " the bill's backers don't understand the Internet's architecture" and therefore "don't appreciate the implications of the legislation they're considering." It would require sites to be constantly monitored and therefore risk censorship/breach of free speech
 * HUGE battle from people on the ground against media corporations - wikipedia and reddit staged "site blackouts", protestors hit the streets in multiple big US cities (NY, San Fran, etc.), Google drew a petition with over 7 MILLION signatures. 2.4 Million Tweets were sent on that day.
 * Bill was tabled on Jan 20 - even the White House claimed that it "posed a real risk to cybersecurity" -- multiple other alternatives have been brought up. OPEN, the "Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade Act" would treat sites with far more rights and allowed its draft to be released on the internet for web-users to read and critique.
 * While it was defeated in the USA, a version of SOPA was released in Australia in 2015. It would "will allow copyright holders of content like film and television to apply to the Federal Court for an injunction forcing ISPs, such as Telstra, to block foreign websites that facilitate piracy". Wasn't stopped due to a lack of a "grassroots" effort -- stakes aren't as high for losing Australia as it is in the USA?
 * European laws are also being stretched to incorporate something like SOPA - they are allowed to make companies take effective measures to "prevent a third party from using their services to infringe an intellectual property right". A version of SOPA was attempted and blocked in the UK in 2011, right before the explosion of anti-SOPA issues in the US

Reading Discussion
Since I'm going to be without internet for reading week, I'm just sharing with you all some of the books I got and hopefully can have a look at. This is mainly so we don't double-read the same books. But feel free to add any resources you're having a look at, in case someone else stumbles across the same book and we can share the information rather than having to read it twice. Group work, woop woop! --Chickpeanut (discuss • contribs) 14:56, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Chickpeanut is reading:
 * Hassan, Robert: The Information Society (2008)
 * Pavlik, John: Media in the Digital Age (2008)
 * Terranova, Tiziana: Network Culture (2004)
 * Vaidhyanathan, Siva: The Googlization of Everything (2011)


 * Fantastic! I'll grab a bunch of these resources and add any more I find to this list. I'm going to have Internet tomorrow through Monday but then I'm dark for the rest of the week, so I'll do what I can on this project this weekend so I don't hold the group back when I'm in Ireland. Hfk667 (discuss • contribs) 18:45, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Could someone link the project that was made part of this module last year? I can't remember the name. It might be a good starting point to get the idea for what we are supposed to do.Sirrinari (discuss • contribs) 10:37, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The page we looked at in class was called Digital Media and Culture Yearbook 2014- heres the link for anyone that wants to have a look to see about structure and things https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Digital_Media_and_Culture_Yearbook_2014 Christiejayne123 (discuss • contribs) 12:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I found a lot of useful articles on JSTOR -- I found them through my other university's account, but I bet they could be found with Stirling's no problem. I don't know if I'm going to use them all, but I'll list them in case anyone else wants to find them. Hfk667 (discuss • contribs) 12:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The Access to Knowledge Mobilization and the New Politics of Intellectual Property - Amy Kapczynski
 * Struggling with the Digital Divide: Internet Infrastructure, Policies and Regulations - Madanmohan Rao, Sanjib Raj Bhandari, S. M. Iqbal, Anjali Sinha and Wahaj us Siraj
 * Universal Access to All Knowledge - Brewster Kahle
 * Economic Experiments and Neutrality in Internet Access - Shane Greenstein
 * Access to Digitized Knowledge: Education, Consolidation, Maintenance - Jennifer Ruth Hosek
 * Access Is Not a Text Alternative - Stephen Brown