Talk:An Internet of Everything?/Public and Private Spheres in the Digital Age

Contributors
&#8593; Back to top

General Discussion, ideas for points & sub-points, questions and notes
&#8593; Back to top

Comments here
Please do not delete the upper two headings, they prevent the subsections of the discussion to appear on the TOC (so that it is not messy).

Discussion Page
&#8593; Back to top

To follow Everynameistaken15 idea, we should have a discussion platform. So before starting to randomly contribute content, we might need to discuss the structure first and then divide the topic into smaller parts. Then everyone can take care of one part first, so that we have a starting point to discuss the content. Everybody ok with that? - SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 12:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Exactly, thank you for this edit. It just occurred to me that people might not be into groups yet, so hopefully after the 19th there will be more people in this section. Also, I don't know if this is a good idea and you can edit it again otherwise but I'm going to name our group and others can do the same so we know who is in each group. --Everynameistaken15 (discuss • contribs) 14:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * No, no - that's a good idea. I totally forgot about that. :) - SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 15:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Great idea! We can sort the topic into sections and assign everyone specific parts. Once we know which sections to do, we can then start to link to the theory we're studying. LucyClaire (discuss • contribs) 15:37, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Sounds great! Organising structure and narrowing down what sections we are all doing will save a lot of confusion in the long run! Eilidhmcauley (discuss • contribs) 22:54, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

First Structure
&#8593; Back to top Ok, to have a starting point, I just built up some points that we should cover. What do you guys think? What should we add? What should we combine, what shall we leave out? - SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 09:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, I made some changes in the first part, like definitions of private and public sphere. Also, regarding the characteristics of digital media I added the uncoupling of time and space, mobile privatization and despatialised simultaneity as key concepts, which can also be put within a bigger argument regarding the shift in social interactions maybe. Then, we should also talk about the narrative of the self and everything related (personas, audiences etc) and what comes from it with connection to the public sphere too and problems deriving from this, like the one regarding making democracy very porous and relevance of everyone's opinionated commentaries (i.e. blogs, traditional journalism etc). I signed the topics that I would like to do (not just those two), let me know if you guys have a preference too so we can start assign these and also increase the number of them. I would say by this Tuesday we need to have the topics ready so we can start ahead. SchrumpflinH, Eilidhmcauley, LucyClaire --Everynameistaken15 (discuss • contribs) 18:38, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Hey, yeah that's okay, but please be careful not to delete parts of my comments :). As it is getting confusing, I think we should move the structure into a table and down below. So everyone can discuss about the table above the --- lines and make changes on the table and sign it, so that they get credit for it. Everyone interested in a topic can add this on the table, even if some others name is already there, we can discuss then, who does which part. Also the numbering won't get lost that way. Does that sounds good for you? Then I think, that your topics are pretty interesting, but maybe can you think about, whether they could be part of the topic "private sphere online and public sphere online"? I think we should keep it strured, that people can see, ok here is everything about one sphere, here about the other sphere and here we have both spheres together (e.g. publicy private and private publicity apear twice now...) Also I think Narcism is part of the The five new civic habits...At the moment the structure is very confusing and there is no straight line through the text - you know, what I mean? Maybe you can doublecheck first, before we can discus further.

People from the other group, please also join the conversation, as we need to finish this together until March 11. - SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 11:49, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, I did not delete your comments, just reformulated some parts that were irrelevant to the structure. Anyway, the discussion session is for us to talk and we can sign it but in the actual project we are not gonna sign everything because it is collective. Moreover, in the view history section you can see who edited what, how and when so do not worry every contributions from each of us is recorded: even if I modify some of your entries and they don't show as the same later your contribution still counts and Simon and Greg can see it. The topics I added are relevant to the discussion because they are explained clearly in the Papacharissi's piece (p.144 onwards). I think a brief link to Jung and Sartre could be interesting as even Greg has quoted Jung in the lecture slides. However, the table makes every thing neat so it's good but I don't think we should talk first about one sphere, then the other and then both together because this is not the approach used in the literature. In fact, so far I have only read about how they work together and the problems this interrelation causes but not exclusively one or the other because the point is how this interplay is modified and enanched with digital media. If you have other sources please share them so we can read about other approaches too. I am currently writing from my phone so I will edit the table later and explain to you both what I mean and why they should stay there. Also, people from other groups will add new topics so we should wait to decide who does what, just express a preference.

I made some changes following our comments and your suggestions in the comment section. See if they sit right with you! Everynameistaken15 (discuss • contribs) 08:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, okay that sounds fine for me! Now I can understand better where you are heading to, so that's really great - thanks for editing everything :). - SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 19:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Topic: Digital Photography
&#8593; Back to top Hi, I think we could write about different types of digital media, for example we can talk about how digital photography and picture sharing changed the way we perceive public and private (I would love to write about this), or how facebook and other social networks did the same as SNS make evident that there is no clear-cut between public/private. We could also make a section with some theorists and their main ideas. Also, if no one wants to write about the dramaturgical representation of the self I'm up for it. GConcilio94 (discuss • contribs) 20:35, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, I like you idea about doing a digital photography and picture sharing section, you should add it to the table and say that you want to do it! Also the main theorists and ideas is a good one, add that too (I can add it but then there would be my editor signature and that's not fair cause it was your idea). I'm also interested in the dramturgical representation of the self and the notion of mask so maybe we can either collaborate or see if we can sub-point it in various aspects. Everynameistaken15 (discuss • contribs) 22:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * EDIT: I don't mind leaving the topic to you. I have added the Jung's masks part because it seemed to fit better with the idea of personas and theatre and maybe we could fit them together in the same argument? Let me know if you are okay with this, otherwise we can split it in a sub-point! Everynameistaken15 (discuss • contribs) 08:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * EDIT: Sounds perfect, I was thinking that I could write about the etymology and the general philosophical idea behind it and then you can talk more in depth about Jung and maybe we can have subsections. How does this sound to you?GConcilio94 (discuss • contribs) 12:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * sure, I'll make the two sub-sections then --Everynameistaken15 (discuss • contribs) 14:03, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * perfect! Thank you GConcilio94 (discuss • contribs) 14:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Topic: Effects of being public/private
&#8593; Back to top I think that we should examine the effects of either being public or private. Give examples of where being public/private has caused harm/problems? One of the points could be that really now there aren't many ways to be private because of the tagging feature for example, has allowed a picture/video to spread across social media - so to what extent are we really private? A section of this should be tagging, privacy and online performance which could be linked to work by Papacharissi. You could put that in the same section as either narcissism or privacy online? LucyClaire (discuss • contribs) 09:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If you want to consider few researches/articles about it maybe you could make a new section just for it, with subsections for different social networks maybe. Also I'm writing about digital photography and picture sharing and how they are changing the concept of private/public and I will probably touch concepts as privacy and how taking pictures everywhere and upload them on social networks can violate someone's privacy and cause problems, so maybe we can work together? GConcilio94 (discuss • contribs) 12:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * We could put this into the privacy setting section and name it something like Tags and Privacy: how they shape online performance? And then make sub-points with various websites as GConcilio94 suggested and you could treat this topic --Everynameistaken15 (discuss • contribs) 14:03, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Privacy Topics
&#8593; Back to top Hi everyone! i've just seen these posts and just want to say thanks to you all for making it so organised and making the whole thing seem simple! I love the idea of the table it means people can write about the topics which actually interest them which hopefully means our marks will be better! I have added my name into two sections of the table (not sure if I did it right still getting used to this) but I'm hoping to do the privacy based ones because that's the area I find most interesting. --Amy Wardle (discuss • contribs) 15:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Sections on Main Page
&#8593; Back to top Oh wow, hi everyone, so I came back and everything is already this huge :D. I just start and add the sections on the main page and on the discussion page, so everyone who thinks he/she can start, can do that - is that alright? We can always adjust and discuss the structure again, but I think we discussed the basics, right? - SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 19:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Headers were added, so everyone happy editing! I am sure there will be a lot changes, especially, as some didn't sign up for a topic yet. But anything that is about the topic and not the structure can be fully hearted discussed in the respect section. Is that ok for everyone? Also Dr. Greg added "Main Concepts" on the Wikibook, but we don't need that do we? Can we delete that heading? - SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 20:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, I just deleted the colon "Editors signature", as it was confusing for some people and as it is not necessary, as people are directly signing in the comment box. Don't worry - I put all the signature of those of you, who filled out that box, into the comment box - nothing is lost. ;). - SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 20:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * we have the basics, hopefully others will fill in with other points or sub-point within this structure. Also I don' think t it matters how we structure the wikibook as long as we have a body of content, introduction, reviews and references so it should be fine like this Everynameistaken15 (discuss • contribs) 22:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Topic: Tagging and Privacy
&#8593; Back to top Hey guys, I'm happy to do a section based on tagging and privacy. Just like what you were saying, compare this across different social media and what the consequences of this action is. Maybe find specific examples of the problems online with tagging and if there is a difference across age, gender, race. I could use a survey which has already been carried out to see how safe people feel online and the number of people who are private compared to public. I guess this topic can spread across a few of the subjects in the table so if we meet up, we can clarify who is doing which section. LucyClaire (discuss • contribs) 09:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Topic: Connection Between Spheres and Online Footprint
&#8593; Back to top Hi Everyone, I had a idea to do a section on the connection between the spheres and the idea of a online footprint being left behind by anyone who choses to upload online. also just incase here is a really handy style sheet Mark Up Cheat Sheet Lubo95 (discuss • contribs) 11:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Topic: Governmental Intervention
&#8593; Back to top Hey guys, I was thinking of doing a section on Governmental intervention within the media environment. This would include regulations and policies employed by governments as part of a wider agenda and the political control over a widely believed entity that advocates freedom of speech or viewing. I'm not sure whether this merits its own section however, or is more appropriate incorporated into an already existing section. Beespence1 (discuss • contribs) 17:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC) I was also wanting to write about the implications of making private information held by the government available to the public, with an emphasis on wikiLeaks exploits. I believe with the range of information this topic could hold, that a new section be created possibly entitled "Public and Private Spheres As A Political Power".Beespence1 (discuss • contribs) 19:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * hi, i think something regarding governments' approach to and against digital media can be interesting. I'm writing about democracy and how personal beliefs can influence mainstream media and therefore political entities that those media represent, so a follow up on governments and wikileaks/what else you want to talk about would be really appropriate. That would be sub-point 5.3. feel free to add it to the structure as 5.3 if you want Everynameistaken15 (discuss • contribs) 19:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think your topic could create a good linkage to the subject I wish to write about, so I will add it as point 5.3 in the structure table, thanks. Beespence1 (discuss • contribs) 20:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Topic: Political Use
&#8593; Back to top hi folks! First this looks AMAZING so thank you for all your effort! I know I'm late to the game, but I am really interested in the privacy aspect of this - more specifically how our attempts at privacy often influence our public perception, especially when it comes to politics etc. - would writing about political use of social media and how public and private political posts shape political narrative be okay or is that going off topic? I would also like to look at how 'private' social media things such as Snapchat aren't really private at all if that makes sense. Lyndzcmedia (discuss • contribs) 01:38, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, I think Beespence1 is doing a section related to politcs in some way and it's right before the privacy part, so if you could come up with a title and put as 5.4 would fit well there. Also, because we have a short section in which we need to write something it would be ideal to have just one person per section, or if the person already assigned wants to share the topic then it's fine. Otherwise we need to come up with our own relevant sub-points or specific topics cause lots of people are already doing something and we might end up stepping on each other's toes without meaning it. Everynameistaken15 (discuss • contribs) 07:37, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * EDIT Lyndzcmedia as i now realise i might not have been clear, the sections assigned are "of" these people just until they are actually posted. Once they are, everyone can suggest, edit and add bits as the aim is to collectively write a book so everyone has still a chance to contribute :)

Sections
&#8593; Back to top Hi everyone, I've just come online and read most of the comments on here but I'm a little confused as to how we're dealing out the sections! I've posted in the table but I'm not sure how many people we're assigning to each section of the page? Is it one person per section or can a couple of people add to it? This whole thing is really confusing me, any help would be appreciated haha! Gnivs (discuss • contribs)
 * Hi, as for the table ideally the person who has come up first with a section got to do that topic, so they have put their name in the section which says that they are gonna do that topic or maybe they have given the topic to someone else. the table you see below was done in more or less four-five days with lots of changes by some people, so it's not the whole topics we can cover, it's just topics that we have come up with so far. you can sign your name in the sections currently free and they would be yours to do and you can come up with other topics too and add them and they will also be yours. so, if you want to write about something that's not there already you can (if you want to discuss it here before adding it it's great). if you want to do a topic that's already there and it's already someone else's, because most of the topics are already quite small, you can ask them. it was a first come first served basis kind of thing so it might be complicated.

Everynameistaken15 (discuss • contribs) 14:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * that's absolutely fine, thank you for clearing that up for me! I'll read into it today and decide about topics etc. that I could write about. Gnivs (discuss • contribs) 14:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * that's perfect! i've added your name in the autonomy topic that you said you wanted to do. you can keep it or just delete your name if you don't want it anymore and others can take it :) Everynameistaken15 (discuss • contribs) 14:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah brilliant! Thank you so much :)! Gnivs (discuss • contribs) 15:01, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * no worries :)
 * EDIT Gnivs as i now realise i might not have been clear, the sections assigned are "of" these people just until they are actually posted. Once they are, everyone can suggest, edit and add bits as the aim is to collectively write a book, so don't worry everyone still has a chance to contribute :)
 * Ahh that's absolutely fine then, thank you haha! Been a bit confused about this whole thing! Gnivs (discuss • contribs) 11:45, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Share Topic
&#8593; Back to top Hey guys, nice to see that you already started to structure and assign the different topics. Nevertheless, now all topics seem to be taken and after I read all your ideas and suggestions on possible topics I have no other topic I would add at this stage. So my query would be, if I could share a topic with someone or would it be possible to bring the Privately public vs. publicly private topic back into use ? Even though, I know that you discussed to use this as part of the introduction to the publicity online. Or what do you think about the idea to add the aspect of “user-generated content” as a subtopics to “Characteristics of digital media”. (Included the aspect, how public and private sphere in this context become blurred.) In addition, I would like to write the Introduction. I´m really sorry for being late on this but I had some problems with my account over the last few days. --Esser.h (discuss • contribs) 04:50, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, bringing back the deleted section is not really useful because we are using it in another section, so it would be just the same thing twice. However, you can do the introduction(i'm adding your name) and I'm thinking of making a sub-section about online-activism by citizens, both in the form of online petitions and the actual effects that they end up having and other examples where online-organised protests and online-shared information that actually brought people out in the streets had consecutive results. If you want to do this topic it'd be great and you can add stuff and cite cases too, so let me know if you are willing to take it! I know that most of the topics have been taken already, so I'm trying to come up with others because there are about 18 people still not saying anything and I fear there won't be anything else to do. Everynameistaken15 (discuss • contribs) 08:38, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, alright I would like to take your suggested sub-topic about online-activism by citizens. And I will add my idea of "user-generated content" to the "Characteristics of digital media” section . Nevertheless, as you already noticed there are still a lot of guys that haven´t participate until now, so I guess in the end maybe some have to hand off or at least share some of their topics. --Esser.h (discuss • contribs) 13:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * okay. by the way as i wrote below the online-activism section is part of a larger section about publicity online and therefore i think it should follow the structure of the two topics politics-themed above it. other sub-sections such as platforms, effects etc would be then sub-topics of this sub-section. the content doesn't change anyway. regarding people needing topics, the people who have been contributing to adding stuff since the beginning may give up or share (already small) topics that they have come up with, or others can wait until the posts are actually written and then they can add and edit bits. there's still stuff to add, like with online-activism, but obviously these last topics would be the hardest ones to scrap and they might be a stretch too. i'm sure everyone has their reasons and i'm willing to give some of mines but the reason can't be that they simply are late to the project, as Greg clearly said that people who are late are not gonna be able to add relevant stuff anymore. Everynameistaken15 (discuss • contribs) 17:04, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, we are all working together on this project, basically we are now just deciding who writes the first draft. Afterwards we will all discuss about the content to improve it. So don't worry, we will all be able to contribute a lot. Me for instance - I seem to have a lot of topics, but most of them are smaller than the topics of those people who only work on 1 or 2. And that's totally fine - we want to get this whole project going right? ;) But as the deadline is pretty soon and some people wanted to start researching and writing, we had to split up the topics at an early stage - I mean the discussion is running for one and a half week already. So, I don't mind sharing topics at all, if people ask, because they might be very interested or have already done research on this topic before we can only profit from this. In some cases it might make more sense that one person starts first before the others contribute (because the topic is tricky or just too small). But if people don't get involved into the discussion I cannot wait for them, because the project of the whole group depends on what I promised to contribute right? - SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 18:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, of course that shouldn´t be a critique on your decision to start with the topic distribution. I really got the point and can understand your argument. So I'am looking forward to a good collaboration on this project :)--Esser.h (discuss • contribs) 20:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Share Topic
&#8593; Back to top Hello, having just read the most recent contributions to the discussion, myself and some of my group, though we may be a little late to the game, agree with the above and don't really see any easy way that we can effectively contribute at this stage, perhaps people who are willing to allow us in on their topics can make this known somehow so that we can collaborate and get a start also? Thanks Lilygeorgia96 (discuss • contribs) 20:10, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ::: ::: ::: Hello, I wholeheartedly agree with this. While it is nice to see that a few have made so much progress, I would like to point out that this is a group project, and as such we should all be working together, rather than doing this in a 'first come, first served' basis, and only making self-progress. I feel like the way this has been carried out is quite selfish, and while it is admirable that (about 4-6 of you, mainly) decided to get started as soon as possible, I don't feel like this will end up working out for everybody as a group. All of us need to understand that we are about 28 (i think?), in total, and while individual contributions do matter, we need to understand that there is only so much one can talk about this topic, and seeing as we are so many people, the way that it has been played out just now seems unfair, since most subtopics have already been talked out and 'chosen'. A couple of people have also decided to 'hoard', in a way, some of the topics (i.e. signing their names in many of the subtopics), and while it should be good that everyone is so keen to do this right, the distribution of the workload is not fair, and if it continues like this a lot of people will be left without barely anything to do. I have seen a couple of contributors (like in the thread above) that also feel this way, and have sort of been 'squeezed out' of the project. Likewise, I've seen people trying to sign their names into some of the subtopics aswell, while the people who 'signed for it first' don't seem to find it useful to have anybody else contribute to what they might see as 'their' topic. It would be very nice if we could all address and comment on this and maybe find a solution to this very big problem, thanks. --Raquelita96 (discuss • contribs) 20:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi there, not trying to start a fight here. I can surely understand your worries, but I think maybe some things were misunderstood here. So far, when people asked me to join a topic or take over that topic for good reason, i.e. they have done some research on that already, I am always willing to give space. Just have a look down there. Of course this is a group project and we want to profit from each other's knowledge and research materials right? Again, the table below there is just for the first draft - we just wanted to have a starting point and I mean, we could not leave topics uncovered till the end, just because someone starts working one day before the due date, right? Yes, I know it's not that late and we still have time, I'm just saying that it is difficult with so many people on a project to consider everyone, if they don't get involved. Some people might be just very excited or really eager to work on a topic because they came up with it. That's just to explain the other side of the story. :) From my point of view, (i.e. and your group) if you are interested in a certain topic please talk to the people, who already work on that topics - right down there in the table. Then that person will get a notification, as a general request up here is a little bit difficult to handle. Me for instance I only have small topics such as introductions, if you want to share some parts of the disambiguation for instance, just let me know, but probably some of them will only need two or three sentence... But I feel very uncomfortable, if I am accused to be unfair and hoarding whereas I simply wanted the project to start rolling. When we started, there were only two groups and we did not know how much content each of us has to contribute we had about 15 topics for 9 people. But soon the content amount changed, so i.e. I wanted to do characteristics of the internet (which was only one topic at the beginning), which then throughout the discussion became a topic with a lot of bigger and minor sub-points that different people cover. So I am very sorry if you have experienced and felt being left out and here I try to offer a solution, but please don't simply blame us. Thank you. - SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 02:45, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello, by no means I was starting a fight or blaming anybody at all, (the only reason I added your names was because it seemed you were the most active out of everyone). What I was really trying to say is, the way this has been carried through as of now seems a bit messy and disorganized, especially since there are more than 10 people in this project who have yet to write something in this page. I just think it is very difficult to work in a group of 28 people, and that maybe it would be much easier to divide the topic into 6 subcategories and each team to take on one of them since it would be much easier and much more organised to work in smaller groups, and the workload would be fairly shared. Of course I realise that this way maybe not everybody would get to write about what they wanted, but maybe they could contribute to other topics as well as their team's one. It is just a suggestion, and I think it would most likely get this project up and running and get the rest of the people to participate much better and easier than how it has been doing up until now. --Raquelita96 (discuss • contribs) 14:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Ok, I get what you mean. Actually I think this is a pretty good idea. The thing is, that people might have already start writing (me for instance) and I am unsure, if at this stage it is still possible to go back and start anew? - SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 14:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * EDIT Maybe you can work with some people on two of the disambiguation topics, namely the definition of private and public sphere? I can surely withdraw from that if you are interested (just delete my name when you assign to it). Especially this is a good topic to work with many people on it anyway as you need several definitions from different authors. Also I suggested a little bit below a topic about authorship and the death of it, loosing identity and so on. Does this help? - SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 14:59, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it would be easier this way too, because there would also be not much use to Greg putting us in smaller groups first and then into larger groups. And I do understand that people may have already started writing but maybe they could choose that certain topic as a group? I don't know, but I feel like it would sure be worth a shot to divide the work equally for each group so that everyone can get involved. And while what you said in your edit could help, it would still not help the problem that not everybody will be equally involved and not everyone would participate (at all or as much) and I think that is one of the most important things with this project. Maybe the people who have already started writing could say so and make an arrangement within their teams, so that everyone is happy? --Raquelita96 (discuss • contribs) 15:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hm, I really find it hard at this stage. Firstly you need to reach out to all users immediately and ask them if they are ok with that. I would not be happy to be honest, as I was just about to upload the first part. Some people also chose certain topics because they've done research on it before, you know? - SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 15:29, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, I've uploaded the theorists section so if you or anyone wants to write about any of the theorists there or add new ones feel free to do it! I'm sure we can find a way to collaborate, we can add more sections so we can all have the opportunity to write something for this project. We still have two weeks left, I'm sure we can come up with something!GConcilio94 (discuss • contribs) 13:29, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

as SchrumpflinH said, I don't think that dividing all these topics into 6 groups would work now, for two main reasons: 1. you would need to sort them and thus get in touch with the people still not posting and 2. I personally don't think it's fair for people like me who have been working on these for a week and a half. An "equality" approach and the division you suggest would have been a great idea if we all had been working on this since day one, at this point it's simply unjust for people who have been doing so and also confusing, unlike this structure which I think it's not messy at all. This might be 'unjust' for late people too, and I get it, but their unfairness is motivated by their own lateness, mine would equal to erase a week of work. Greg said multiple times that late people wouldn't have been able to post relevant stuff and his first reminder by email was on the 20th and the second one on the 22nd (which is also more or less when we started adding stuff to the table). If people had come here they would have seen that there were already people posting and also they might have advised their group to start collaborating. I also know that some people have been allocated late, and if there are some here I will personally give them one of the topics I have now. As has been shown, we can still come up with topics but it's not my or anyone else's responsibility to make sure that everyone gets their share of participation. I don't mind sharing my topics with others and I don't want to start a fight either but doing as you say it's not equal, it's wrongfully impartial. One last thing, as has been said various times, this topics are assigned in the sense that these people are gonna write about them in the discussion page and eventually paste them onto the book once they are finished, but once they are written EVERYONE can add things to them and modify and that WILL build your contributions. For instance, if I write a piece and then disappear until the 11th while you add further on everyone's piece your contributions will surely be higher than mine. Everynameistaken15 (discuss • contribs) 16:06, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I understand the problem that new groups have when they're coming to the table and seeing it full, but I don't think it's a ridiculous thing to ask for people to make up their own topics and I think if you really put enough thought into it, without looking at the table, you could definitely think another few subsections up. I think now completely changing the structure and topics for people who have already been working on them for over a week is quite unfair. I definitely don't think there's a case of "topic hoarding" as people have thought up their own topics so it makes sense that they will want to do them themselves. Especially since many of the topics are small and don't have enough information on them for another person to collaborate. Also I think people collaborating on topics could get easily messy and confusing, especially if the topic they're both doing isn't huge. This would obviously affect the grades of both people which isn't really fair. However, I'm fine to drop the Identity Performance section for other people to do as I already have three other ones that I would rather focus on. I've taken my name out of it so anyone who is interested in doing it feel free to add your name in. Eilidhmcauley (discuss • contribs) 08:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

'''EDIT: HI EVERYONE (sorry for the caps lock but I need to bring attention to this). I have emailed Greg about all of this. He says that the structure is good and the group first posting has created a win-win situation where no one has now to start from blank. In addition, the email says that if people wanted most of the share of topics to control they should have seized the moment sooner, but this doesn't mean that others can't edit their own content in the book, which means that the book is not yet fixed, but malleable for everyone who wants to add up, either here or when the entries are posted. Hence, the book will change it's appearance. So, to reiterate, each of us will be able to edit the book with their own suggestion or others' entries and add their own topics but for now the people working on a section, while they can be more than one for sure, are designated to write about it at least until their pieces are posted."' --Everynameistaken15 (discuss • contribs) 11:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Topic: Author 2.0
&#8593; Back to top Anyone still looking for a topic, I have a suggestion: How about writing about "Author 2.0" and the death of authorship as a sub-point of internet characteristics? It is a pretty interesting topic talking about how the authorship changed through the Hypertext structure online and finally through user-generated content, which we also have as a sub-point. - SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 13:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this, and what you mean by 'author', (as in social media user?). --Raquelita96 (discuss • contribs) 15:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There are various kinds of authors online, we have readers as authors, programmers, designers, anonyme authors, collaborative authorship and authors as initiators or editors. This differs from the traditional kind of author in literature especially the anonymous one - this affects the private and public sphere in different ways, e.g. the publicity of an ebook can be different than a printed version, it is copyable. Also how does anonymity change your private sphere and your appearance in the public one? And so on... - SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 15:29, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Still open for contribution

Structure Table
&#8593; Back to top Hello friends, I believe I messed up the table that was set up in the Structure section, could somebody help out with getting that back into its prior form? Marinieuw (discuss • contribs) 21:13, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, just fixed it and back to normal. I left your comments where you put them, see if it's right :) Everynameistaken15 (discuss • contribs) 21:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * My comments added to the online activism section have been moved to the user-generated section but I think everyone involved is aware of that now? Marinieuw (discuss • contribs) 14:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * yeah mine too! in fact, i didn't want to do user-generated content but online-activism i don't know how they ended up there! Everynameistaken15 (discuss • contribs) 14:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Referencing
&#8593; Back to top Are we allowed to reference lectures in Wikibooks? I was thinking about discussing the things we learnt about copyright in ownership of user-generated content following the lecture we had today, as it's quite relevant to people claiming work as their own across several platforms of social media. Marinieuw (discuss • contribs) 14:22, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if you can reference a lecture. However, if you can locate the source of the information use in the lecture then that can be used as a reference. Not sure if this is what you meant, if so then if you could just completely ignore me that would be great. Beespence1 (discuss • contribs) 16:32, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi guys, another question: does anybody know how to reference laws by any chance?

&#8593; Back to top Hello everyone, I was wondering if I could add another section to the wiki book on a topic in regards to Public and private spheres. the idea is to add information on always online culture and a digital footprint, and how that footprint can affect person due to the ease of information being able to be found online. there are various aspects of this which can link into some of the others in the structure so let me know your thoughts on weather to add this in Lubo95 (discuss • contribs) 16:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * hi, for what concerns online footprint there's a section about privacy and then another sub-topic about online tracking and such, so you could make a sub-point below that and title it online footprint, just make sure not to repeat what other people are probably gonna say in that section too or add your name in places where you feel like it's that you want to talk about. about always-on culture we have already quite a lot of topics that are within that idea, such as online performance, publicity etc, but if you can come up with more specific ones they can go among those too! Everynameistaken15 (discuss • contribs) 17:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, yea, I think it would sit well in the privacy section. I will add it into the table. I was also thinking we could add a section about online footprint, maybe to the online persona? This could basically say how an individual’s persona can cause issues in their own public life. For example, to suggest that when people who say or do something online, maybe at a young age, this can then affect them in further life when looking for a career. I could explain with examples, or suggest how this might happen. I don't know if this will be covered in a different subsection but I think it would make an interesting addition to this section overall.Lubo95 (discuss • contribs) 16:09, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Topic: Political Communication
&#8593; Back to top Hi and, I was thinking to create a section about political communication online, talking about information, persuasion and participation, but from a communicational point of view. It is more about how political players, i.e. politicians, parties, institutions, NGO's or even citizens, cann access public information, persuade each other about their political point of view and how thereby a participation is created. Can I add it as 5.3.3 or does it overlap too much with your sections? Thanks for a brief feedback :) - SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 15:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * A section on political communication online shouldn't overlap too much with my section. My section will mainly focus on excessive use of power and regulating the network in a way that serves a political agenda. Since I will be writing briefly about Wikileaks and the consequences of some information being public I may write a sentence or two on political communication, but nothing that would cause damage or repetition if there was a section dedicated to political communication online. Beespence1 (discuss • contribs) 08:08, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Cool, then I will add it :). We can always adjust the content afterwards, if it doesn't fit or overlaps in a strange way. I just wanted to make sure not to steal from you guys ;). SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 15:08, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi! It might overlap a wee bit with mine as my bit is more focused on politicians and parties campaign techniques, but I think you could still do it ands then we can edit after if there is any overlap. Lyndzcmedia (discuss • contribs) 09:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Okay great, thanks for your feedback, guys. I will upload the content soon then - and if it overlaps too much, we can also just take the content, that does not overlap and add it to your parts and instead delete political communication instead. - SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 12:45, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Theorists
&#8593; Back to top {{replyto|SchrumpflinH Hi there, my group were looking at the structure tab on this page and noticed there were no names for 8.1-8.5. Could we each take a theorist and fill that section? Braydencoulman (discuss • contribs) 14:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * {{reply to|Braydencoulman}} I am sure you can/ If I remember right, GConcilio94 wants to encourage you to do so. :) Have fun! SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 15:08, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * {{reply to|Braydencoulman}} I just moved your comment up, so that the note stays at the botton. Hope you don't mind! -SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 15:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

{{reply to|SchrumpflinH}} Yes, you're totally right! {{reply to|Braydencoulman}} as I've already said to Lubo95, feel free to help me with the theorists section. Since I already have two other topics to do I will just take Lincoln Dahlberg and leave the other authors to you guys, just talk to Lubo95 and decide which one you want to write about and if you need help with any of them don't hesitate to contact me! GConcilio94 (discuss • contribs) 15:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * {{reply to|Braydencoulman}} {{reply to|Lubo95}} Hey, please add your name to the table, so that we know these topics are covered. Thank you :) SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 14:06, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * {{reply to|Braydencoulman}} {{reply to|SchrumpflinH}} Hey I have added Myself to the table. Lubo95 (discuss • contribs) 11:54, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Great, so the theorists are all covered now! :) SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 11:58, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello {{reply to|SchrumpflinH}}{{reply to|Braydencoulman}} - I have added in a theorist Van Koten as I think he is important and seemed to have messed up the structure of the table. I was wondering If anyone knew how to fix this it is 9.3?

I am trying to add a link in of a theorist from Wikipedia- does anyone know how to do this as the ordinary link button will not work. Thanks Tellegee (discuss • contribs) 17:21, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

{{reply to|Tellegee}} Hey I fixed the table, if you want to add an internal link from wikipedia you have to write [ [ w : page | link label ] ] (no spaces), if you want to add an external link you'll have to write [ http://www.example.org ] or [ http://www.example.org Link label ] GConcilio94 (discuss • contribs) 22:12, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

{{reply to|GConcilio94}} thank you very much, It took so many attempts. Wikipedia seemed to not let me link in a Wikipedia page. Thank you for your help Tellegee (discuss • contribs) 00:11, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Topic: Collective action dilemma
&#8593; Back to top Everyone still looking for a topic: You can also talk about the collective action dilemma, mentioned just in the last reading about technologies of cooperation! SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 15:13, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I will talk about this if it has not already been discussed, can't see that it has! SophieNHayes (discuss • contribs) 23:52, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Great! No it hasn't been discussed yet. Where do you think this topic could fit in? SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 09:29, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking it could fit under 1.4? I am open to your suggestions also. I was also going to define collective intelligence to start off with, unless this is not entirely relevant in which case I can remove it from my draft. SophieNHayes (discuss • contribs) 21:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I think it does not fit anywhere so well... I am not sure if talking about collective intelligence is not too far away from our topic (although it has something to do with collective action dilemma, that's right). Maybe it makes more sense to define collective intelligence in the glossary and then refer to it in your text, that can focus on the dilemma according Rheingold about balancing between self-interest and public goods (the typical group work dilemma :D between selfishness and common goods)? Maybe it can be part of publicity online? I mean it shows the difficulty of working in the online public sphere. Do you agree? I will just create the section there, so that you can upload your content (as it is soon to the deadline) and if it does not fit there, we can sill move it around ;)-SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 15:00, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I was struggling to find somewhere for it to fit! That's brilliant, I'll try and get it uploaded ASAP and we can then see where it will fit in! Thanks for doing that, massive help. SophieNHayes (discuss • contribs) 23:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Main Concepts
&#8593; Back to top Hi everyone again: I think we should delete "Main Concepts" from our book page. I know Dr. Greg added it, but it does not fit with our structure (everything has to be a sub-section of that...changing that is very time consuming and also it does not look nice afterward anymore) -SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 15:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I think the textbox does a good job navigationally for the page, and the main concepts might look a bit out of place, but could the "main concepts" page not stay there with brief introductions to each one? I'd happily see it go, but I think ether that or the introduction needs to serve as a preamble to the main body of content. Also, if we need the intro done or edited, I'm happy to do it. Blackflagdog (discuss • contribs) 16:32, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your feedback! :) I agree, there should be an introduction. Esser.h is working on the introduction, so maybe the two of you can discuss (depending on what Esser.h is going to write), where we need another introduction in "Main Concept" or whether we can let it go. Does that sounds fine? SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 19:43, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * My plan for the Introduction is to getting started with a “description” of the digital age and use it as a transition to our public and private sphere discussion. Therefore I would like to provide the reader a kind of navigation through the book by touching all our topics (to give the reader an idea how they are connected and interdepend) and link to each topic. Being the reason that I guess that another Intro for "Main Concept" is redundant, or what do you think? Or do you have other/further ideas or suggestions for the Introduction? I´m glad for more ideas.--Esser.h (discuss • contribs) 13:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think your idea of using it as an overview to guide with navigation is actually ideal, because the topics man be hard to navigate without any context. I think your idea is ideal, but if you'd like any help with the introduction, even if it's just to proofread, I'm more than happy to help. Blackflagdog (discuss • contribs) 13:10, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for you answer and support. Maybe I will contact you for some support during the next days. I´m going to write the introduction on Thursday because until now there are less topics uploaded and without any context I can´t write an intro. So I hope that there will be more context and than i will write and finish it. If I will need any help I will contact you but I would be glad if you could proofread it. --Esser.h (discuss • contribs) 14:12, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh and also, we don't have anyone to work on a critical review yet, so if you decide to remove "Main Concepts", maybe you are up for that? ;) - SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 19:50, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds ideal. I'll see if the intro needs any help and get to work on the critical review ASAP. Thanks for letting me know :) Blackflagdog (discuss • contribs) 08:46, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Cool, can your add your name to the table then? :) and yeah, I agree, I'm looking forward to your post then. I'll remove "Main Concepts" from our page. - SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 14:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Topic: Security and Social Hacking
&#8593; Back to top Hey guys! As well as Security and social hacking feel free to add to the theorists sections as there isn't much work yet done on some of them. I know Nikolas wanted to help with Papacharissi so if you have anything you wish to add we can work on the theorists section 8.1-8.5 also.

Hi, in my groups section on online anonymity we have commented upon Hactivists and Hacktivism, however, this relates more to political hacking rather than social hacking but we could perhaps look at each others content to contribute with new ideas.

Hello mystery contributor above ^^. I think we have from our group contributing to the Theorists part. Yea I've kind of gradually changed our part on "social hacking" to something more along the lines of "Sphere invasions" which should hopefully not clash with your section. I took 'hacking' out of the title to help prevent any confusion. So far so good, though. 14buchananL (discuss • contribs) 21:41, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Starting Point
&#8593; Back to top Hi everyone I just got here and want to know what I should do. I did a little work on "nothing created nothing destroyed" but otherwise not sure where I ought to go. Any direction?Stafoya (discuss • contribs) 15:45, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Your comment was misplaced, which is why no one answered you yet. I moved it up here. The topic that you mentioned, is currently covered by Eilidhmcauley, so please get in touch with her to see how you can contribute at this point. Otherwise, there are still some topics open as you can see in the table. Additionally I suggested some topics just above here, which you can work on, if you like. Please remember to create a section on both, discussion AND book page and in the table. Besides this, there is already some content on our book page, which you could revise and contribute to. :) SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 17:22, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * EDIT If you can, please cover the 12.1 Zizi Papacharissi - topic (if you do please sign on the table) - or anyone else, who has the time. Because this is the core reading for our topic/lecture, we definitely should mention him. Also his theory about privately public vs. public privacy is very important I think and he also talks a lot about the sphere especially in digital context, that other theorist might neglect a little bit. SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 19:23, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * EDIT That topic is taken now, but there are still plenty others. :) SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 20:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Rearranging
&#8593; Back to top Hey, I just rearranged this section a little bit, so that the discussion, that belongs together is placed together. I think it got very confusing at the end (and probably still is, but we do what we can do ;)). General debate about topics can now be done in the section above. Quick Notes that are important for everyone can be found below and I added a short version at the top in that pink box, so that everyone can briefly see, what's important and new and can come here to read the long version of it. Happy editing! -SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 20:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

EDIT I also highlighted topics, that are still open on this page. Please also have a look on the table, as I highlighted it there, too. No excuses for not being able to find a topic to work on now. ;) :D Especially the Theorist topic needs support (Firstly 12.1 Zizi Papacharissi)! SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 20:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC) I added a back to top function on the discussion page, as it annoyed me that I had to scroll up so long. If you think we should add something similar to the book page, let me know! I am curious to hear your thoughts about this.SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 21:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Just added printing template to our wikibook. See if you like it. :) SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 13:12, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi folks, I added headings to the discussion here, so that you don't have to scroll all the way up to find the edit button and then scroll all the way down to get to the end, where you can add a new comment. The edit link will appear right next to the heading of that specific section. I just tried to summarize the discussion sections a little bit, if you think I did not get it right, feel free to change the heading. Also I collapsed the Contributors (I think we don't need that to be open all the time, but I don't want to move it down either, as I think it belongs to the top - this way it should bother us less) and the table overview. If you are confused by any changes or don't like it, feel free to contact me ;). After all, I did these changes to help all of us getting through this page easier! SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 13:47, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Special Guests' Comments
&#8593; Back to top Hi guys, your page is looking great so far! I'm working on the surveillance/sousveillance page and found chapter that is connected to your topic. I hope it will be useful for you. Good luck for the rest of your project! --Evp09 (discuss • contribs) 16:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey, I just moved your comment up, so that it's easier to access and see. Thanks for your note and good luck to you as well! SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 18:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Changes undone
&#8593; Back to top Hey, one of you guys (I assume accidently) deleted pretty much all of the page. Which is why I had to undo the last changes. Please check if your last contribution is still there and if not, please add them again. Sorry for the inconvenience, but this is the only way to save everything, what has been on this page so far ;). SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 12:16, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Quick Notes and General Announcements to Everyone
&#8593; Back to top

QUICK NOTE TO EVERYONE

Hi guys, I just wanted to say that although this page has a lot going on, please make sure to have a good read through it before posting new topics etc. Just to make sure your topic isn't just a repeat of what someone else has already put, and if someone is writing something you're interested in just ask them if you can collaborate with them or expand on it! Just so we can all try to keep the structure as neat and organised as possible. Thanks, happy Wikibooking x Eilidhmcauley (discuss • contribs) 17:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Reminder: There are still some new topics in the tables, that do not appear on the discussion page nor on the book page as an own section. I am only talking about adding the headline, so that a section appears, where people can add comments or content (or other sub-sections!). This will also appear at the table of contents at the top. Please remember to catch up, because it is confusing for other people, whenever they want to edit, that half of the topics are missing... thanks:) SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 15:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi everyone,

QUICK REMINDER: Due date is this Friday, March 11. So please all of you, who assigned to upload a section's first draft please do so soon. We are still missing a lot of content. I know we are all busy with other assignments, but we cannot have a discussion about topics uploaded in the very last minute ;). And it's the discussion, that gives you credit for the understanding part (30%) and engagement part (50%). Please give other people (especially those who could not assign to a certain topic) the chance to contribute, edit and mess with your first draft :o) so that we together can get a great content mark! -SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 18:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Quick Note about group discussion sections

I noticed that one of the groups has added a section for a group discussion, and I thought that it might be handy to have one for each of the groups. This means if there's anything we'd like to discuss or share with the group there is a place for it separate from everything else. If groups are talking on facebook (which I imagine most people are) it might be useful to add some of this in as context in case other users are unsure of where ideas etc are coming from. I'll tag and  in this to check this is alright. Banddcole (discuss • contribs) 18:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Sure, I don't see any trouble with that, just so that you don't trouble other people, you should move your discusstion to the bottom of this page. We decided to move our discussion to another page, which is why there are only the rest of our discussion left. ;) But maybe if every one is doing so, we could move back to here? SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 18:43, 6 March 2016 (UTC) 'EDIT Okay, I've seen you already did so :D - SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 18:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * yeah, it's a good idea for every group to have this section. ours got deleted in part before we decided to move it but now everyone should be aware of this so there's no problem Everynameistaken15 (discuss • contribs) 18:54, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Major Changes in the Structure Table Please tell me, if you are going to make major changes in the structure table (changing the order or changing headings). The reason therefore is, that the table was a little bit of a mess and as some people still forgot to add the sections to book page AND discussion page AND the table, it was very confusing. I tried to clean everything up, as much as I could - but please, I won't do that all the time! If you need help, then please ask some of the people, who are doing a very good job, I am sure someone can assist you. :) Also I added a navigation bar for the table, you can see the description below. This was necessary, as the table got very long - please remember, that content discussion (as soon as it is not talking about the topic order nor the topic overview) should be moved down to the respect section, so that the table does not expand too much ;). So now, after a major change in the table, I have to adjust the navigation bar a little. I hope the restructuring helps and people get trough the discussion page faster than before. SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 00:18, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

If the links do not work, just ping me and I'll see what happened there :) SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 12:15, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Last-Day Last-Minute changes and discussion
Hey pals, what's up with some text being randomly highlighted, is it for a reason? It doesn't look very neat. Marinieuw (discuss • contribs) 15:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Structure
&#8593; Back to top &#8595; Down to end of table

Working with the table ''Please add to this table points you have come up with or you want to suggest. If you want to do a topic that has already people focusing on it, please ask them and then add your name. This would be mainly for the first draft to know who is going to write what, then anyone from any topic can suggest and add up everywhere. When you add content to this table please remember to also add your points or sub-points to the table of contents both in the discussion and book page, otherwise your adding will be only visible here and not in the actual book. Symbols: Hit  to get to the content discussion section of that topic. Hit  to get back here, the top of the table. Hit  to get to end of the table. SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 12:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Introduction
&#8593; Back to top Hey, I found a really nice video, that gives a nice introduction to everything, maybe you can link it in the introduction? I already added it to the reference list on the discussion page :). It talks about the book written by Smith and Cohen (one is Executive Head of Google, btw.) and it is an advert actually. But it gives an interesting introduction to the topic as well; it asks all the questions - although without giving all the answers as it is just an introduction - that we want to answer here. It is very lovely as the presentation mode is nice (audio and graphic). :)

SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 18:55, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

After reading your introduction, I think the link does not fit there, so I will just put it in the External Links part! :) SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 12:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation
&#8593; Back to top Just added an introducing sentence, as no one seems to be up for it ;). SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 15:22, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Private Sphere definition
&#8593; Back to top

Hey, I do not fully agree with the definition of the private sphere. I think private sphere is not only the family or home; I think these are only examples. In my opinion, the private sphere is more an area, where we think we have full authority. Even Wikipedia says, it is a "certain sector of societal life in which an individual enjoys a degree of authority, unhampered by interventions from governmental or other institutions". I know, Wikipedia is not the best source, but I actually agree with that kind of definition more - because only if we see the private sphere as a non-physical area, we can explain the shifting of our private sphere in the digital age, don't you agree? SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 12:33, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

thanks for your view. I posted that when i thought i was done but i am still looking into it and see what else i can add. I partially agree with you, that is why i added the authority part before i even saw this comment. Thank you for your feedback! Valesagasti (discuss • contribs) 12:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * hey, haven't had enough time to look at it yet, but I will in a minite (and when Val has finished writing it) Thanks for the feedback, i also think of it like that :) Raquelita96 (discuss • contribs) 12:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hiiiiii, well go ahead and add anything you want now, (and obviously feel free to fix anything you want), cause I have no clue what else to write :) Valesagasti (discuss • contribs) 15:04, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Public Sphere definition
&#8593; Back to top

Digital Age definition
&#8593; Back to top As we start discussing about the content, how about moving the discussion down here? I just basically thought about presenting different approaches of different theorist to this term "digital age". The problem is, that this is a very unspecific term in my opinion, I mean does it mean the time since digitalization has started or only the last couple of years when digital media has established? I am currently working on an introduction to digital media, where I will also describe this term, so probably you can see what my approach to this topic is. I am looking forward to your posting then ;) - SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 15:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm in class right now so will start looking it now! I really like your idea about approaches of different theorists, but I'm not 100% certain on what they mean by Digital Age either. Going to look into it now! Gnivs (discuss • contribs) 14:22, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I just thought maybe the last lecture we had is a very good approach? Basically Simon was telling us the story of the digital age, wasn't he? Turing Machine, Memex and Vanavar Bush, WWW and Berners-Lee are definitely key figures from my point of view. Also there was this text in the core reading about Midi files, maybe this could also be part of this section? - SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 15:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Yep, agreed. Sounds great! I'll read into the core reading about Midi files, I like the idea of including things about the Turing Machine etc, that would be good in this section. Gnivs (discuss • contribs) 19:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey I think we can also add in a subclause, that the internet is a artificial public good according to Rheingold. But depending on how your text goes, this could probably also be mentioned in another section.

SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 15:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey sorry, I had an essay due for today so been busy all weekend. That looks good, I've been working on the other section I'm going to write in so I haven't done anything yet on this one. If you want to add your ideas onto the main book page that would be fab, I'm going to try and add in my other section and then I'll help you edit this section! Sorry I've been a bit quiet haha, other work has been piling on! Gnivs (discuss • contribs) 18:33, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, that's a little bit on short notice, but I am working on it right now. As I just found a very good book, I chose another approach than the lecture in order to focus more on the disambiguation than to focus on the contributor. SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 14:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey, I just uploaded the first draft, maybe you can have a look? I think one can add more definitions of digital age, if wanted, in the upper part. As the digital age is a time frame, I thought including the historical part (or "evolutionary ladder") could be interesting and helping to define this term. Of course there is so much to say about digital age, but I left out mostly all kinds of effects on society, culture, because I think this would go beyond what we planned to do. I have not included the numbers of internet user etc. I am not sure if that is necessary, because the digital age contains so many technologies, that it would not be justice if we only list the user behaviour of some and including all would be too much (possibly even focusing on the internet would be too much information). I included some pictures which show concepts of memex, turing machine and the Internet of Things, because I think these are the most difficult to picture. Because of that I had to embed the quotes as tables instead of using quote box, as wikibooks is very restricted if it comes to layout with mixed elements... (the quote box was not able to align with the picture). To compensate that ;) I added an in text hypertext structure, so that can jump from the evolution table to the part in the text, that talks about the respect stage (I know, no one will notice nor use it, but I thought it is suitable if you have that kind of a table). Let me hear your thought about this :) SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 18:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh and here are some quotes, I am not sure if the one, that I use is suitable, how do you find these: Source - SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 18:49, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "I don't know a single person who is not immersed in the digital universe. Even people who are strongly anti-technology are probably voicing that view on a Web site somewhere. Third-world villagers without electricity have cellphones." - George Dyson
 * "What turns me on about the digital age, what excited me personally, is that you have closed the gap between dreaming and doing. You see, it used to be that if you wanted to make a record of a song, you needed a studio and a producer. Now, you need a laptop." - Bono
 * "Digital for storage and quickness. Analog for fatness and warmth." - Adrian Belew
 * "In digital era, privacy must be a priority. Is it just me, or is secret blanket surveillance obscenely outrageous?" - Al Gore
 * "I don't know a single person who is not immersed in the digital universe. Even people who are strongly anti-technology are probably voicing that view on a Web site somewhere. Third-world villagers without electricity have cellphones." - George Dyson

Ahh, all looks great! Thank you, so sorry I've been so bad at this. I have no idea how to work wikibooks so it's been really difficult. It looks really good!! :) Gnivs (discuss • contribs) 21:26, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I think everything you've written in this section is great, and I don't have anything else to add! I think I'm going to change the quote though - I quite like some of the other ones you mentioned to me previously on here so thinking I'll change it to one of those!! Hope that's alright. Gnivs (discuss • contribs) 20:42, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

actually still really liked the first quote so added another one from George Dyson! Gnivs (discuss • contribs) 20:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Awwwww honestly? :D I was torn apart between those two quotes and thought that these are the top two! :D So great you agree with that and I like your solution! Thanks! SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 20:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I really liked both!! No worries, really great work :) Gnivs (discuss • contribs) 21:35, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Characteristics of digital media
&#8593; Back to top I'm going to upload the first draft (tonight so don't wonder if you read this earlier). I am still working on the characteristics of digital information and on the categorization, which should probably be done by tomorrow. If you have a good source that we can draw from, just edit and add! - SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 13:35, 1 March 2016 (UTC) Hey I am still struggling with the examples for this part. If anyone has a great idea, don't hestiate ;). In the meantime I try to find a good resource for categorizing digital media, too. SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 14:00, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Soooo... I reworked the table. Unfortunately I could not find a good taxonomy, but the way I put it, makes the most sense for me. The table is not complete (obviously, these are just examples), but they include the most important types I think. The categorization is really difficult, depending which media theory you apply (Kittler, Vroom etc.). Encodings like PNG, ASCII are file formats, which are not a media type in my opinion. Also I did not include blogs for instance, as it is part of social media. The "networking" heading might be a little bit imprecise, but I think that the three examples here definitely base on a network or even create a network (either technically or interpersonally). About the devices part, the first group are mainly input media and the second group are more output media kinds, but as they sometimes overlap multi-media like (i.e. modern cameras nowadays can record and present and some even distribute while uploading the files to the cloud) I did not pointed that out so clearly. Finally, I did not include the mobile phone/smartphone, because I think that the mobile is a combination of many media types, i.e. it has a camera, it has internet access, it can store files.... I was also thinking about a moblie category as part of the devices section, but that did not fit the taxonomy I applied. As I said, there are many ways to categorize this, so if you have any other proposition, please tell me! :) SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 19:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Uncoupling of Space and Time
&#8593; Back to top i posted the first draft for this but i need to do markups and references still. do you think i should have put it in the discussion page still or is it okay in the book? Everynameistaken15 (discuss • contribs) 22:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I moved your comment down. I think that's the right way you did, just leave the first draft there, people looking at the discussion will know why the markups are missing. I will read it soon and help you with the markup. -SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 12:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * sorry I posted this before actually finishing the markups and references in a burst of energy last night! So it should be finished now and you can add your stuff and everyone else too. See if you like it though I'd appreciate that :) Everynameistaken15 (discuss • contribs) 13:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think it is a good starter. I did some minor edits to language and layout, hope you like it. On content side there are 2 points:
 * I want to add the time dimension there. I think I will work on this right now for you to see.
 * There is a longer introduction from your side, which is nice. I have my text, that introduces the characteristics of digital media nearly done, I can upload the first draft, that I have at home, tonight so that we can see if we need to adjust this or that part to get a fluent reading. - SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 13:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * okay, when you post it we can have a look and make them have a nice flow. I added the citation and put the two references in the table in the discussion page Everynameistaken15 (discuss • contribs) 13:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Awwww there was a edit conflict and my whole content and changes are gone... :( also your last paragraph is missing now :/ I try to add my paragraph again and maybe you can have a look at it again. - SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 14:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * aw i'm sorry! I can see the editing you did and the citation/references I added during the workshop but I can't see nothing new, is it that that's missing? Everynameistaken15 (discuss • contribs) 14:47, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * hey, i saw the thing you added in this section and i think it's great, i just changed a couple of words :) Everynameistaken15 (discuss • contribs) 18:45, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey, do you think we should add this part?

- SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 16:47, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * yeah sounds good! we could also link to the app periscope in that sense. add this part, and then i'll attach the persicope thing ? i didn't think about that Everynameistaken15 (discuss • contribs) 17:47, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * done ;) Actually I think we should link to political communication part on our page somehow, but I don't know where... - SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 17:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah I like your edit. I did not know there is something like that. But it gives a good example, thanks. SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 19:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey I just changed the table again, you were right, it was a little bit to big, so now it is 90% of what it was before. Unfortunately I could not fix that the text touches the border, but well... SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 18:51, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Mobile Privatisation
&#8593; Back to top

Hey, I just read the upload, I think it is a good starter, but what do you think about the fact that we take our private sphere, earlier the home/family, with us? And that we can be in our private sphere on our mobile, but at the same time we are in a physical public area (i.e. a coffee shop)? I think these are important as well. SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 16:55, 11 March 2016 (UTC) Hey, thats an important point. You can add this if you want, I tried to bring that in but it would become clearer if you would add some sentences on this. SimonBrinkmann (discuss • contribs) 17:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Digital Photography and Picture Sharing
&#8593; Back to top

User-generated Content
&#8593; Back to top

Hi, maybe you can help me with a problem concerning a link to another wikibooks. I just want to make a link to the Wikibook chapter of "Access to Knowledge in Everday Life" but every time the system sends me an error and says that I can´t publish it. Being the reason why I haven´t linked to it until now, but I would like to. I already read the conditions but I haven´t find any advice how to link between wikibooks without getting an error. Thanks in advance. --Esser.h (discuss • contribs) 20:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, sorry I just saw this as I was scrolling past and from my expieriance all you have to do is higlight the word you want to create a link to and click on the "chain" like/link icon, then copy paste the wikibooks url into the webpage you wish to be directed to. It will then tell you "The URL you specified looks like it was intended as a link to another wiki page. Do you want to make it an internal link?" There will be an option to create an internal link and that should work. Hopefully I explained this okay? --DunkyNG (discuss • contribs) 22:43, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, thank you very much for helping. This time it works!! :) --Esser.h (discuss • contribs) 10:50, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Ownership of user-generated content
&#8593; Back to top

Narrative of the Self
&#8593; Back to top

Dramaturgical Representation of the Self, Ancient Greek Theatre Notion of Persona
&#8593; Back to top I was wondering if this was relevant in the Public and Private spheres context? is writing about it in the theorists section, so it might be a bit much to still include this part as well. Marinieuw (discuss • contribs) 11:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I think you've got me wrong, it is true that I'm talking about a theorist but I'm doing it in this section not in the theorists one, if you take a look at the book you can see how I've compared his theories to public and private spheres in digital age. However I couldn't write too much about his ideas as there's another section for Identity Performance and Management of the Impressions of the Self. Anyways I believe that this is supposed to be just an historical background to the concepts that we still use now. GConcilio94 (discuss • contribs) 17:07, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

aah right okay then! Marinieuw (discuss • contribs) 09:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Different Personas for Different Audiences: Jungian Conception of Mask
&#8593; Back to top

Narcissism and Asceticism
&#8593; Back to top

I was looking up these terms to see if I could possibly contribute on them, but I realised that I was't quite sure if these had any relevance to Public and Private spheres in digital media?? Should we remove this section? Valesagasti (discuss • contribs) 11:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, i already wrote this entry in the book and it's part of our topic so we shouldn't delete it ahah. however, i remember that you and me were supposed to collaborate on the impression management section, not this one, so maybe if you want to start writing you can start from that. this section is complete and i was the only one doing it so i already posted it --Everynameistaken15 (discuss • contribs) 18:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey, no sorry then! I was just discussing the page as a whole with a few members of my group to see if there were topics that we could take out and focus more on others, but if you have done it already then thats great :) --Valesagasti (discuss • contribs) 18:49, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Private sphere as able to afford the presentation of the self within a mediated environment that servers values of autonomy, control and expression
&#8593; Back to top -Gated community where you have the autonomy to craft a public image to a select audience

-Sites like Instagram or Twitter or Facebook where you can have protected/private profiles

-Presenting yourself through photos/posts that are crafted specifically to build up a certain image of yourself

-E.g. filtered Instagram posts, Facebook profile pictures, tweets

-Issues of realism – creating a narrative of your lifestyle within a protected audience

-Who is the audience?

A Private Sphere - Zizi Papacharissi

-“These tendencies are the property of a citizen leading a largely reflexive existence in order to actualize an identity that is fluid.”

-“Participating in a MoveOn.org online protest, expressing political opinion on blogs, viewing or posting content on YouTube, or posting a comment in an online discussion group represents an expression of dissent with a public agenda, determined by mainstream media and political actors. It stands as a private, digitally enabled, intrusion on a public agenda determined by others.”

-“in contemporary democracies the citizen becomes politically emancipated via a private sphere of reflection, expression, and behavior.” Gnivs (discuss • contribs) 14:32, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey, I wondered why a reference appeared at the bottom of this page, that's why I found yours. If you have a look at the references part on the discussion page, you can see, that we've already used this source :) So I changed your reference in order it to not appear twice on the book page - Sara is sure it is 2013 (I wasn't sure myself), so I edited that, too. Don't worry if it looks funny here, it will be fine on the book page, because that reference has been use in 3.1.. Here is your original text, so that it won't get lost:

Hope you don't mind :) -SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 15:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey! That's absolutely fine, no bother. I just decided to write up my notes on this page first, thank you for changing that bit! Honestly confused about the whole layout of this page haha. I wasn't sure about dates so if Sara is sure it's 2013 then she's probably right haha! Thanks again Gnivs (discuss • contribs) 19:31, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I think you could definitely have a focus on the way that social media accounts can be the only place some people get to exhibit and experience total self control, they can choose what they say and how they present themselves, like a private area that is just for them that can make them feel safe and creative. Mentioning privacy settings on sites is also a good idea, and also how the public and private versions of your online self can differ. Comments about 'crafting' a version of yourself online would also be really interesting. You could also mention the fact that although you are choosing your audience online to some extent, you never fully have control over what you put online and where it can end up circulating, which contradicts with the idea of control. Looks really good though! EilidhNo.2 (discuss • contribs) 18:51, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

That's a good shout about what audiences can see your online posts! I'm going to be putting together the section tomorrow after the lectures so will take that into account when I'm writing. Once I've put it up please feel free to add to it/take bits out/edit anything! Gnivs (discuss • contribs) 22:39, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I've written a big bit in the section now, so if you want to add anything please do! I've mentioned audiences quite a lot, but I feel like I've barely written anything and it's pretty much all the same haha. I could probably write more so I think I'll go back to it tomorrow/later on this evening! Gnivs (discuss • contribs) 17:30, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll look now and see if I can contribute. I'm sure it's great! You can absolutely always edit it whenever you think of something new you want to mention. EilidhNo.2 (discuss • contribs) 20:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey, just wanted to let you know that I edited all the first person pronouns to third person to make it more professional, otherwise it's a very interesting topic. Sleepyzoe (discuss • contribs) 15:52, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

that's alright, thank you so much! Gnivs (discuss • contribs) 20:31, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Identity Performance and Management of the Impressions of the Self
&#8593; Back to top

Valesagasti this is the section we are meant to write Everynameistaken15 (discuss • contribs) 18:42, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hey! sorry it has taken me a while to get back to you. So how would you like to go about this section? have you written anything already? and how can I help you? --Valesagasti (discuss • contribs) 18:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * hi, I haven't written anything yet except a few bullet points that are the ones also in the table above as concepts. in fact i took books out of the library just today ahah. I think it shouldn't be very different from what outlined in the table section. So maybe have a look there and tell me what you think and also if you have points to add and then we can split it or one of the two makes a draft and the other can add up. Everynameistaken15 (discuss • contribs) 19:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Right i was looking at the points on the table and how about we split it, Facebook and Twitter sound good to talk about since those are the main social medias. For Facebook we could obviously talk about the process of choosing and uploading pictures (specially profile pictures) and then for twitter we can talk about how people thing carefully about what to post and how concise it will have to be, and how it reflects on them. Do you agree?? Does this sound right of am I on the wrong track?? and which one would you like to talk about? facebok or twitter i know there are more social medias such as instagram, snapchat,, tumblr, and LinkedIn. However, i think the most important ones are Facebook and twitter. What do you think?? --Valesagasti (discuss • contribs) 15:43, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * i was thinking more of a theoretical approach, based on Mendelson and Papacharissi and Goffman works. if you want i can do a general introduction/theory-based while you do aspects of twitter and facebook. but i think it would be better if we both worked on the same thing. Or, you could take Mendelson and Papacharissi' Look At Us, explaining the project that goes into taking a picture, like planning,shooting etc and in general about that, while i do impression management. however, in this case we would need to start asap to coordinate! Everynameistaken15 (discuss • contribs) 18:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah i was beginning to make notes on the theory according to Goffman from this article. Here are the few notes I took:

•Management of the impressions of the Self: - Impressions: we create these though what Goffman calls “signs vehicles” which includes bout our language as well as our body language. We create these by our expressions. - Expressions: 2 types The expressions we give → things we say, poses, facial expressions (smiles, surprises, disgust) and any other controlled body language we show. The expressions we give off → the expressions we have less control of. Inconsistencies between what we say and what we actually do, the body language that “gives us away” in some situations.

I am not sure if any of this can be helpful to you, but I think we should do what you said. I can take a look at Mendelson and Papacharissi' Look At Us, and explain the project that goes into taking a picture etc, and I could also reference Facebook and twitter while I do that, and you can do impression of management. If that is okay with you? I can also by tonight post here a rough draft (cause honestly I am confused as to where else to post drafts hehe) and you can look at in the morning and see if what I wrote is good or not ?? :) --Valesagasti (discuss • contribs) 18:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * okay great, i'll start my piece on goffman and post it here, and you'll do the same and by tonight we will make the final entry! Everynameistaken15 (discuss • contribs) 10:10, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * So this is what I got so far, I am still working on editing it, if you have a chance to look at it, just let me know what you think :)

There are many contributing factors that go into taking and choosing photographs that one may decide to put online. A process has been used in Chalfen’s Snapshot Versions of life (1987): •Planning •Shooting (on-camera) •Shooting (off-camera) •Editing •Exhibition However, after analyzing Mendelson and Papacharissi’s “Look at us: Collective Narcissism in Facebook Photos”, there is more than just planning, posing, shooting, that goes behind uploading a picture on any Social Network Sites (SNSs). Media gives the opportunity for people to express themselves in various forms. “While people are purportedly presenting themselves, they are presenting a highly selective version of themselves. Social Network Sites (SNSs) present the latest networked platform enabling self-presentation to a variety of interconnected audiences.” (Mendelson and Papacharissi) SNSs allow people to present themselves different for different audiences. For example, in some cases people create multiple versions of Facebook, one for their parents and one for their peers. As well, people edit their photographs according to who their audience may be. Consciously and unconsciously people work to define the way they are perceived by others, hoping to cause a positive impression. For this to happen, have to put effort in their appearance, the way they act, and try to hide their flaws. Uploading a profile picture, or any photo, is a process because it represents who a person is. A deciding influence to choosing a photo to upload is the thought of who will be seeing it. For example, having your grandmother on Facebook stops one from posting photos from a social night that only your social group would find amusing. Donath and Boyd define SNSs: “online environments in which people create a self-descriptive profile […] Participants in social networks sites are usually identified by their real names and often include photographs; their network of connections is displayed as an integral piece of their self-presentation.” The more personalized photographs individuals take emphasize how they wish their lives to be remembered. Consciously and unconsciously individuals transform themselves before the camera; portraying a version of ourselves we hope to be. Valesagasti (discuss • contribs) 18:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * hey this is exactly what i meant, so perfect :) i'm about to write mine and i'll post it here in a couple of hours i think Everynameistaken15 (discuss • contribs) 14:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * hey Valesagasti this is my draft. if you look up Impression Management theres a paragraph that talks about how goffman's works connects to social media, so maybe you could draw from that to make a shift from my passage and then add and merge what you wrote about mendelson and papcharissi. let me know when you are done or just upload you part cause i havent done references yet on my draft as theres no point in doing them here, i'll do the directly in the book but it's mainly goffman anyway Everynameistaken15 (discuss • contribs) 16:24, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

The individual who is part of a social group and in the immediate presence of other becomes at once initiator and part of a staged performance. Within this performance, the individual will intentionally or unintentionally express himself, and the other individuals of the group will in return be impress in various way by him. While the impression that the individual gives off cannot be entirely predicted in the way it will be received, the main interest for the subject is that to try and construct and impression that is consistent with the way in which the subject wishes to be seen. That is, the subject works to influence, in its formulation, impression directed at others in the attempt to have them receive the impression that was meant to be conveyed, thus also shaping the situation which the recipient finds himself in. However, sometimes a subject might. In addition, the degree to which the subject disclose certain aspects of their life, thus censoring some information and making available others through a form of “crafting” of the represented-self, enormously shapes the perception given. Within this performance, the observes too have a role that doesn’t comply with merely observing, The spectator, whom is part of the spectacle, knows that he’s being allowed to perceive and knows the his perception serves the performance, but at the same time, even more if he’s a performer himself, he knows that something is being hidden. However, his role is confined to the front region and he cannot access the subject’s backstage. Nonetheless, if the observer is enough close to the subject, he might disrupt, even unintentionally, the constructed impression that the subject has tried to give to themselves, thus resulting in the subject embarrassment. This could be the case when, for instance, pictures in which the subject has been tagged on SNS differs a lot from the staged self-presentation that the latter has crafted. The impression management process that the subjects controls, therefore, inevitably concerned with the dialectic of social relations. For this reason, the subject has to satisfy his desire for control with regard to the situation and ways in which his own self-representation will be perceived by others. However, just like he has under-played and over-played some aspects of their representation, so have done others too in the role of subjects, especially in the way they feel about him. Therefore, all the relevant social data about other in order for a complete control are unavailable. In their absence, the individual tends to employ cues, tests, hints, expressive gesture, status symbols that works as predictable devices for his characterisation in others’ minds. Indeed, to avoid a by-product impression of his representation, the subject has the option to reframe their representation in a way that the observer will be manipulated by those cues, signs and symbols in his interpretation. That is, a sign can be employed by the subject in the absence of knowledge of what the the observer’s interpretation of the sign’s signified would be. For this reason, a convincing impression is not necessarily concerned with what the subject is or has but these elements can be engineered enough to convince, in their absence, the observer that they are indeed possessed. Everynameistaken15 (discuss • contribs) 16:24, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * okay this is great! sorry, i just got home so give me an hour or so, ill read what you wrote and ill ready what you just said as well, and ill make both things merge nicely and when I'm done ill let you know and ill post it directly on the book and let you have a look at the final product?? does that sound good to you?? :) Valesagasti (discuss • contribs) 18:12, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * okay go ahead! just post your part and the linking bit and i'll post mine then Everynameistaken15 (discuss • contribs) 18:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

its up on the book :) I'm still editing my parts (as much as i can understand how haha, this whole wiki thing is very complicated to me) but i wanted to give yo the chance to reference yours before its too late at night :) Valesagasti (discuss • contribs) 19:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * okay, thank you for telling me straight away! and let me know here if you need help with something Everynameistaken15 (discuss • contribs) 19:19, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Celebrity Culture
&#8593; Back to top I plan on using a really interesting source which is a journalist research article about the use of social media and the rise in the number of people using social media for news. I'll link this back to theory of Lanier who says that newspapers are in decline and more dependency is placed on social media which is troubling for celebrities as not all news on social media is true. And because social media is such a massive platform news spreads even faster and this is out of celebs control, entirely breaking any barrier of privacy.

Facebook and Twitter News Use is on the Rise % of users who get there news there

Twitter: in 2013 - 52% and in 2015 - 63%

Facebook: in 2013 - 47% and in 2015 - 63% LucyClaire (discuss • contribs) 16:16, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay the graphic (or rather the table - but no one will see :D) is created! Took me a while, but have fun :D And the quote is also changed. SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 17:20, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Online Identity - pushing the boundaries of public and private
&#8593; Back to top I deleted: So what do I mean by this? - feel free to discuss about it. In my opinion we should avoid "I" and addressing the reading in any personal way on the Wikibook, as it is a little bit different than a normal essay. Also we are working with many people on the content, so actually there is no "I". :) Also the headline a mixture of usage and non-usage of capital letters, maybe we can harmonize it? -SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 15:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * hi sorry, what this section is gonna be about? so we can avoid repetition with identity performance and management of the self Everynameistaken15 (discuss • contribs) 17:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey, I did not write that section. I only skimmed through the text on the main page and found the two things disturbing. I thought that the author already talked to the other people working on the other part of online identity. - SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 22:07, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sherlock here :o) Can you answer Sara? Also can you add this section to the table please? I already added it here, thanks x -SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 22:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey guys, yeah I added this section in. In this section I'm going to talk more about us as a user and the type of information we choose to share and how the level of activity changes the functions of public and private. I will add this to the table later LucyClaire (discuss • contribs) 10:22, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey, I added a part about sharing information online, because I think it is important to differ between the part of our online identity that we actively create and for which we (possibly) can be made responsible for, and the uncontrollable, invisible part of our extented private sphere. I also started to add some markups. Still your text is missing references - can you please add them to your text and also to the table on the discussion page? If you need help with that, just add them here or go through the introduction on the reference section on this discussion page. :) SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 13:53, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Just removed information sharing to nothing created nor destroyed, as I think it fits there more. SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 19:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC) No problem. I totally agree, thanks. LucyClaire (discuss • contribs) 10:26, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Publicity Online
&#8593; Back to top So I just uploaded the first draft. I have not included Papcharassi's connection to the private sphere yet, do you think it is necessary? I think we are dicussing the linking on many levels, so I left it out and only concentrated on how publicity is created online to have a base line for the following sub-topics. - SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 21:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Public Displays of Connection
&#8593; Back to top Just started working on my first draft for this and I've got the first half up already, mostly referencing the Public Displays of Connection article but danah boyd and Judith Donath. This and just working with my general knowledge of social networking. There's not a huge amount to write on this I don't think so it is quite a good thing I'm writing it on my own, however if anyone has any suggestions of things they think I should write or readings I should look up feel free to let me know! Eilidhmcauley (discuss • contribs) 12:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Pretty much finished this section just a case of dotting the I's and crossing the T's, but if anyone has anything that they'd like to add to it or they feel I've missed out please feel free to do so :) Eilidhmcauley (discuss • contribs) 20:26, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

hiya, just added a little cross-refference link from this section since you mention catfishing and I talk about it under Anonymity in the private sphere, just thought it would be cool to link those two :) Raquelita96 (discuss • contribs) 00:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey, I was actually wanting to do that just wasn't really sure how to haha. Thanks a lot! :) Eilidhmcauley (discuss • contribs) 10:11, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ah I'm glad! yes it is quite tricky to figure out how to format things here, I struggled lots yesterday haha :) Raquelita96 (discuss • contribs) 11:38, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Haha I was the same! I usually just go and see how other people have done it first then just copy them haha. Eilidhmcauley (discuss • contribs) 13:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Democratic but Not Democratising
&#8593; Back to top

Public and Private Spheres As A Political Power
&#8593; Back to top I have uploaded my topic and have used the last paragraph to lightly discuss social media being used politically so that it should link smoothly to your topic. Beespence1 (discuss • contribs) 14:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey, I've read your upload and I think it is a great analysis and structuring of political power in digital age, but I am missing the link to the private and public sphere. I mean I know that it all takes place in the public an private shpere but we should emphasise the effects on the two sphere a little bit more, don't you think? I.e. we could say how monitoring of our online activity influence us, our behaviour and how it changes the actual private sphere, that is totally not private anymore? We do not need to go too much into detail, because there is a topic for most of these (also for government's hacking), but then we can link it to these topics and make use of the linking. SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 19:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Looks good! I'm uploading mine just now so shall give you a message when it's up and we can smooth over any repetition or anything we may have missed. Lyndzcmedia (discuss • contribs) 11:56, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Public and Private Spheres on Social Media and Political Agendas
&#8593; Back to top Hey I just edited your references, as they did not had a name disclaimed. Could your please read through the reference section on this page and then add your references to the table? SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 17:41, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

The Rise of Digital and Social Media in Political Activity
&#8593; Back to top

Hey, although I like your referencing template, please have a read through the referencing section on this discussion page and align in order for others to be able to work with your reference as well. Could you then also please add your reference to the table? Thanks. SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 17:38, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey, I changed your layout a little bit, to make it look more straight and a little bit less confusing - hope you don't mind. Also, it might be a nice gadget to have the headers in colours, but as no one else does this, don't you think, that we should remove the colours? SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 16:06, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Political Communication Online
&#8593; Back to top I just uploaded my text (it is such a huge topic, I have the feeling, that I am still missing so much...) - I did not mention viral marketing as a form of persuasion, because I thought maybe you would like to add to that? SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 16:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Sure thing! I'll have a think about a section I could write on viral marketing. Ill probably add to this later in the week once I have completed my main contribution on private sphere invasions. 14buchananL (discuss • contribs) 18:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Online-activism by Citizens
&#8593; Back to top

Forms and Platforms
&#8593; Back to top Hi guys, I uploaded my text concerning forms and platforms. Please feel free to add, correct or suggest some points. There are maybe also some spelling or grammar mistakes as my english is not the best... --Esser.h (discuss • contribs) 08:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

hey Esser.h i moved your comment here so we have more space to discuss than in the tableǃ as you'll have seen i too have uploaded the online-activism general introduction part, and the two cases of hong kong and arab spring. i'll take a look at the forms and platforms then once you add occupy wall street (if you still want to obvs) these two part should be complete Everynameistaken15 (discuss • contribs) 10:23, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * hey i just had a look at your piece and i think it's really great. i tried to cite as few platforms as possible and not give specific name in the introduction so we would have a nice follow up in forms and platforms and i think we both managed well in doing so cause you went on with that so it's great. As i too used the Vegh's piece in the cyberactivism book, i only changed the references to him with the same ref name as i used i mine so all references to him in both my and yours show up as a single ref, only with different letters like a b c d and we don't clog the ref section with repetitions. also i've linked to the online-activism section above with a mark up. Lastly, i put a ref name for all your other references because otherwise you will just link to them but they won't show up in the reference list at the bottom of the page. I didn't change anything else, but see if this sits right with you! Everynameistaken15 (discuss • contribs) 10:55, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Just edited some references, as they had several mistakes. Please read through the reference introduction on this discussion page again. SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 15:23, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your proofreading and linking to the online-activism section. That is a great idea. Concerning the Occupy Wall Street movement, I´m going to upload it tomorrow morning and this time I did some more interlinking between our online activism section (you will see it tomorrow). Thanks for your advice concerning the references, I will read through the introduction again and and change it.--Esser.h (discuss • contribs) 16:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * okay, great! Everynameistaken15 (discuss • contribs) 16:54, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You are welcome :) Could you also please add your references to the reference table? I also marked some references, that only contained one link, as I think this is not sufficient for citation. :)

Effects
&#8593; Back to top

Past Events
&#8593; Back to top Arab Spring

Hey, I found a very nice quote, that you maybe could include? It is translated, so maybe one can adjust the grammar and style a little bit, but I think it is a very nice starter.

- SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 17:03, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * hi, thanks for the quote! i'm gonna adjust it a bit and probably use it for the intro, thank you :) Everynameistaken15 (discuss • contribs) 17:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah great! I also added the reference to the reference table, so you don't need to do that anymore. ;)- SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 17:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey I just read your upload, I think it is really great, honestly. There is a good description of what happened, examples given and a good link to our topice, i.e. the uncoupling of place and time. I did minor changes (capital letters and stuff) and added the quote, because I think it fits perfectly with your final paragraph - I added it at the top so that a frame is created. SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 20:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * i don't why i don't get notification now ahah. btw thanks!--Everynameistaken15 (discuss • contribs) 13:50, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi I am not sure this relates to you just to let you know that the picture of Arab Spring was taken down as it didn't comply with Wikipedia's rules of copyright. I uploaded one that is from flickr and replaced it. I recommend you add pictures on the commons from this site in the future, had to learn it the hard way myself. Srepanis (discuss • contribs) 01:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * hi, yeah i saw there was your username there when i looked up the picture from commons, in fact i took it from there so i don't know why it was taken down. Anyway, thanks for uploading another one and fixing the problem, i did not saw that cause probably was later in the night. thanks again ː) Everynameistaken15 (discuss • contribs) 10:16, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

"Honk Kong Students Protest''

I uploaded my text but I´m aware of the fact that there are several citation mistakes which I will remove later! --Esser.h (discuss • contribs) 01:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey yeah, sounds good! I think this part's references are pretty much ok, sorry if I sounded a little bit harsh yesterday, I did not mean to scold you or so ;) Thanks for your note! :)-SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 11:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi I've noticed that nobody has uploaded anything specifically in to the "past events" part of the wikibooks, has this section been incorporated into other areas or has it not been completed yet? If not I was going to remove that section from the actual wikibook, thanks :) --DunkyNG (discuss • contribs) 16:28, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * no it's actually the title of other sections regarding indeed past events. it's not empty, it's just an header for arab spring, hong kong and occupy wall street so don't remove it please :)Everynameistaken15 (discuss • contribs) 16:55, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Collective Action Dilemma
&#8593; Back to top

Uploaded my piece, feel free to let me know if I need to change anything. Found editing slightly difficult, appreciate any help! SophieNHayes (discuss • contribs) 14:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Heya, I only edited some markups, but I think it looks nice, so no worries ;). SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 16:51, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Privacy on digital media
&#8593; Back to top  WILLING TO DROP/COLLABORATE ON THIS TOPIC  Have been a bit behind in writing this as I've been working a lot etc and had a lot of other stuff to do but I have made a start! As this is just the definition I'm not going to elaborate too much on it because I think it's better to leave that for the sections that follow. Hoping to make it more of a general introduction, and as far as I know at the moment I'm currently working on this myself.

If anyone else is struggling to contribute and wants a topic or to collaborate on it I would be open to it. Just let me know! Thanks Eilidhmcauley (discuss • contribs) 20:26, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I was wondering if this would be the correct place to talk about the fact that tagging people in photos on Facebook helps to build a database of faces and improve facial recognition technology, which most people are unaware of and can be seen as an invasion or abuse of privacy? I think it's really interesting, just wondering if you've considered talking about this or if you would like me to add a small piece about it somewhere? Thanks- Lilygeorgia96 (discuss • contribs) 21:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC) Hey! You definitely could go into that and I agree that it's something that is really interesting. Feel free to write a bit about it, but just bare in mind it is a kinda general introduction to the privacy section so if you could link it into the other sections that would be perfect! Thanks :) Eilidhmcauley (discuss • contribs) 21:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC) Thanks, that's great! Do you have any idea or preference which sub-section I could put this in, I'm just not sure where it would work best- it will just be a wee explanation of the concept :) Lilygeorgia96 (discuss • contribs) 21:31, 9 March 2016 (UTC) For now I've added it on the book in its own little heading under 1.6.1, if you want me to change anything at all or to move it elsewhere just let me know, I hope you don't mind! Thanks :) Lilygeorgia96 (discuss • contribs) 22:25, 9 March 2016 (UTC) No that's perfect! I haven't had a chance to properly read over it all but it looks really good! Eilidhmcauley (discuss • contribs) 12:20, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Privacy rights and awareness of privacy settings
&#8593; Back to top

Data Tracking and Privacy settings
&#8593; Back to top

Encryption
&#8593; Back to top

Cookies
&#8593; Back to top

Advert Tracking
&#8593; Back to top

Tags and Privacy: How They Shape Online Performance
hi, just thought we can move the discussion down here cause it was getting kind of crowded in the table :) Just wanted to say that I just (finally!) managed to upload the section on Instagram to the book. Turns out I'm an idiot and couldn't figure out for the life of me how to link to wikipedia internally instead of as an external link :( But it is uploaded just now, thank you for the advice! If there is anything wrong with it or anything you can have a read and tell me if its okay? thank you very much! :) Raquelita96 (discuss • contribs) 22:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I was starting to feel that haha. I'll have a look at it right now, but I had the same problem with the wiki links for the tumblr one, took me about 5 tries to get it right. Sleepyzoe (discuss • contribs) 22:16, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

î Back to top

Facebook
&#8593; Back to top

Twitter
'''hello (sorry for the bold but its important!) the deadline is coming up soon and I'm really not sure if you've seen this but we suggested above that you could do the twitter section? Nobody is doing it right now and we thought maybe you could do it if you wanted to? Time's running out and I wanted to let you know, since you really wanted to participate on this! :) ''' Raquelita96 • contribs) 17:39, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Raquelita96 Hey, i've only just seen this and I'm working on the definition of Public Spheres right now so not sure if I will have time, but if I do I will try and do it, but honestly don't know if I will- thanks for bringing this to my attention though --Amy Wardle (discuss • contribs) 17:52, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * hey, no problem, thought you hadn't seen it! That's ok, if you do have time at the end and you feel like it then thats great :) If not, please do say so as soon as you know you won't be able to contribute because there still might be people searching for something to say. If nobody else shows up to write it in time, I guess it will have to be deleted. I'm glad you saw this, though! :) Raquelita96 (discuss • contribs) 18:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

&#8593; Back to top Hey, I just edited your references, as no name was disclaimed. Please read through the reference section on this page and add your references to the table. SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 17:15, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Since the deadline is in a few hours can people not just write something in this if they want to? I don't see what the big deal is if you don't like it then it can be changed. I think it is too big a topic for one person but that also it should not really be left out since twitter is one of the main forms of media used by the public sphere and there is a lot to talk about... Eilidh no.1 (discuss • contribs) 13:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey! I might have some free time later to help you add some stuff to this section, so if you need any extra help just let me know. Even if it's just a few sentences. 14buchananL (discuss • contribs) 14:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I have added to this section because it had nothing. i have not added much so there is plenty of space and things for others to add in also. If people disagree or are not happy with what i have done feel free to edit or delete. however i do feel this is a collaborative piece of work and we a re working together as a team. I am willing to discuss if you disagree with my contribution to the page. sounds good. I have a tiny bit so far but i think at this stage any one should just contribute if they have an idea. Eilidh no.1 (discuss • contribs) 14:42, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, thank you for doing that. I was kind of worried that nobody would like to write it and we would have to delete it! I had been trying to contact the people who had said they wanted to and offered to do it or contribute in the past but I guess they either forgot or did not have enough time :( But now that you have added it, I'm very glad! You are right, this is a collaborative piece, so thank you, and  if there is anybody else willing to add something to it then please do so now!!!  :) Raquelita96 (discuss • contribs) 15:11, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Instagram
done and uploaded! :) Raquelita96 (discuss • contribs) 17:39, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

hello, I noticed you added a picture and a link to this section. I did consider adding one when I was writing this, but I remembered both Greg and Simon saying to only add pictures if they are going to add a meaning or give more sense to the text (he commented this in someone's post on their own discussion page as well, especially and specifically regarding website/app logos), so I will remove this edit. You also aded a link, but that same link was already there in the form of one of the numbers ([1]) after the word 'instagram' if you would like to check yourself, so i will remove that as well :) Raquelita96 (discuss • contribs) 01:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm sorry if I invaded your topic however it did say at the top of this section still open to contribution and I was taking to a few people about the photos before adding them of course and it was highly recommended. I did also talked to Simon about it in wiki labs. However if you feel it is not relevant then that is totally fine and I apologise. Tellegee (discuss • contribs) 01:44, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * hi, no not at all! It is not my topic and you did not invade, in fact everything in this project is open to other people's contributions. I just mentioned this because I remember reading the feedback Simon posted on someones discussion page (which i'll just go ahead and paste here: you have demonstrated a high level of competency with wiki markup through your use of links, subsections, tables and images (although to be pedantic, it's best to only include pictures where they enhance the content - and the logo is unconvincing).) This is only why I thought it would be best not to put a picture on it! But if there is some content you would like to add to this section or any points that you think might be interesting to talk about then do go ahead! :) 01:55, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

also, there is one topic left for writing in this section (tagging on twitter) and no one is yet doing it if you would like to write it up :) Raquelita96 (discuss • contribs) 01:55, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Nothing created or destroyed
&#8593; Back to top I changed the citation for you and also added it to the table :) SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 15:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC) Ahh that's perfect thank you! Eilidhmcauley (discuss • contribs) 21:52, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I just added a quote, that could fit there. I just realized, that the contribution I did to the Online Identity - pushed boundaries topic about sharing information and shared information might fit this topic more. Do you think one should move it down and only refer to it in the Online Identity section? - SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 00:28, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey I just moved the infomation sharing part down to this section. I think it is important to distinguish between information that we share willingly and that kind of information, that we do not even know about. Both parts create our online footprint, whether visible or not and whether within our control or not. The important part is, that our information is grabbed out of our private sphere - even without our consent, and brought to the public (sometimes even sold by companies) or to other peoples private sphere, i.e. screenshots or simply copying our posts. As we write with ink on the internet, nothing gets destroyed, the question is, whether we still have a private sphere - as soon as we go online, we seem to loose the boundaries and as a lot of us are part of the always-on culture, we do so all the time. I know your are still working on that part, but I just find this very important, so I just wanted to leave some thoughts and that content that has already been prepared here. SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 12:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for putting all the changes in! Really appreciate it. The quote works really well I think, didn't even think to put it in there but it goes great and sums up the topic perfectly! The other changes are fine aswell, thanks again for doing them :) Eilidhmcauley (discuss • contribs) 14:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey are you still wanting to write a little piece at the end of this section? Eilidhmcauley (discuss • contribs) 19:51, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I've wrote a fair bit on this topic but I think that there is still a bit left that could be covered, anyone interested is free to collaborate just let me know your ideas here! Thanks Eilidhmcauley (discuss • contribs) 20:24, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey I'm currently working on another section and don't know if i will get around to it however i thinkis still Looking for a section so i don't know if sophie would like to take over my idea of highlighting the issue with real life examples Lubo95 (discuss • contribs) 20:39, 10 March 2016 (UTC) Hey, that's no problem at all! I understand what it's like :). If you're looking for a topic to contribute to feel free to do this one, whether you want to take Lubo's idea and/or do something else it's up to you! There's also the Privacy in Digital Media section fairly free that could use with someone else contributing to it. Up to you though obviously :) Eilidhmcauley (discuss • contribs) 20:49, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I popped in a paragraph on Ashley Madison as I'm not 100% sure if anyone is going to go ahead and actually make a subsection of examples. It's not entirely necessary for the topic but if you do just pop that in there aswell :) Eilidhmcauley (discuss • contribs) 21:54, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey, sorry for the slightly late reply internet has unfortunately been playing up. I could add in a paragraph which was talked about in the lecture. It was how Facebook a few years ago showed some users good advertisements and others bad advertisements, if you guys think it's relevant I can elaborate more and pop it in? SophieNHayes (discuss • contribs) 22:43, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey Yeah, I was thinking about Putting a bit on MSP mhairi black and how she made sectarian tweets when she was 14 and basically how that came back to her during the general election. i am sure there will be more like this out there unfortunately i haven't had the time to have a proper look.Lubo95 (discuss • contribs) 22:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah feel free! That is a good idea, I didn't even think of that one. Would work well too considering she's been in the news quite a lot recently. If you have the time to do it go for it :) Eilidhmcauley (discuss • contribs) 23:07, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I already wrote a wee bit on that but didn't go too much into it, so there's plenty left to write so you should be able to elaborate on it :) Eilidhmcauley (discuss • contribs) 23:07, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey Yea I will have a shot at it tomorrow still finishing up theorist section. so i don't know if you guys may have a chance to get in before me. but i will try my best to get more done for it by tomorrow before the deadline at 5Lubo95 (discuss • contribs) 23:15, 10 March 2016 (UTC) Don't stress too much about it, if you can get it done that's great but if not it's not an essential part to the topic I don't think, is just a nice add on! I'll maybe pop in something about it if I have time :) Eilidhmcauley (discuss • contribs) 13:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey guys, I just added a paragraph about the data retention, to emphasise I tried to not get too much into tracking, as it is a separate section below, do you guys think, this fits here? SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 14:57, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * the kind of tracking that we are exposed to, not only does our online footprint comes from facebook postings, but also from our surfing behaviour
 * that the reason why information about us is stored (which lowers its possibility to be destroyed) is also partly a legislative and not only a commercial reason
 * how many parties take part in storing our online footprint, making it impossible to erase our online appearance.
 * Hey that's perfect, think it definitely fits into the topic thanks a lot for adding it in! Eilidhmcauley (discuss • contribs) 16:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey guys, had a read at everything that's been wrote, think you have all done a really good job of addressing everything! I was going to add in my point that I had discussed with you earlier but I think it has pretty much been covered and don't want to start confusing everyone so I will leave it! Good job :) SophieNHayes (discuss • contribs) 16:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey, that's no problem! Thanks :) Eilidhmcauley (discuss • contribs) 16:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Anonymity in the Private Sphere
Hi, just uploaded the section for this introduction, should be there soon, it seems it is waiting to be revised? There are 44 different edits to be revised so I'm not sure what's going on. But it should be up soon if everything goes well. --Raquelita96 (discuss • contribs) 16:26, 9 March 2016 (UTC) &#8593; Back to top

Referencing here as well :) Please add them to the table. SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 17:06, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Freedom of expression in private spheres of social media
&#8593; Back to top

Seeing as no one else has jumped on this yet I'll take it. I'll talk about how freedom of expression is performed and perceived on username bases services like Twitter, Tumblr and Instagram and contrast it with websites which value total anonymity, such as 4Chan, and websites that offer little to no anonymity like Facebook. If anyone has any ideas/contributions please tell me here or throw them in. MoreThanMax (discuss • contribs) 23:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, it seems a bit presumptuous and impolite for you to hijack a subject that has actually been created and assigned by members of our group and we have stated this in the large edit table if you would like to take a closer look, we are working on this topic already perhaps you can add something once it has been posted and that way you can contribute to the topic, however it is unfair to take away another persons work due to not reading the edit table correctly, perhaps we can collaborate in some way if you are really stuck for a topic.--DunkyNG (discuss • contribs) 13:35, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry man, that is my bad. Missed it on the table and because there was nothing on this page or the book page I assumed it was free. MoreThanMax (discuss • contribs) 14:03, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

It's no problem! Feel free to add something to the section once it has been uploaded, it should be done soon enough.

hi there, there is absolutely no problem. The section will be uploaded soon enough as soon as it can be figured out how to reference a couple of things properly, I don't think it will be a particularily long section at all but if there is something you would both like to add to it go for it ! I'm sure we can combine all of our ideas and make a really good post :) Raquelita96 (discuss • contribs) 16:29, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

hiya, this section is now posted and you can now add anything you feel is relevant and that you would like to talk about. If it does not quite fit in with what is already there, you could make a subsection as well :) Raquelita96 (discuss • contribs) 03:09, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Altered Narratives of the Self
i would also like to make a point or a subsection on catfishing, alter-egos and on identity theft in this section? i think it fits in quite nicely and will be interesting to talk about --Raquelita96 (discuss • contribs) 17:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC) &#8593; Back to top

Same about referencing here. :) Just edited your references, they need a name disclaimed and please add your references to the table. SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 17:04, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * heya, not so sure what you meant by what I did wrong when I referenced them? I'm pretty sure I used APA style and used the name of the author for each. But oh well I guess now it is sorted? Also, I did what you said and I added them all to the table. Raquelita96 (discuss • contribs) 02:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh no it was about the markup not the APA style, that was totally fine. Thanks for your effort:) SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 11:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh okay then, I'm glad! I'll try my best to add other references from other people into the table or try to edit the markup or the syle too :) Raquelita96 (discuss • contribs) 11:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey, also, I read your post and I think it is really interesting. You are right, it overlaps with 4.7, but I think your perspective and argumenting, why the bondaries are blurred out, is more focused on the reason, that people use identities not connected to their actual private sphere (did I get that right?). That is why 4.7, which talks about that the boundaries are blurred because of just using the online platforms, would give a nice introduction, what do you think? Maybe we can link between these two topics and create a hyperlink, meaning, adding in t 4.7, that there are more reasons, which shall be discussed in the lower part, namely this one? SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 12:22, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * hey, thank you very much! Yes I see they do overlap but when I was finishing to write it I tried going into more detail so that it wouldn't overlap completely. Yes I think you got that right hehe :) I'll go make a cross-reference link on it and it can introduce it to this section. Thanks for the feedback and thanks for having a read! :) Raquelita96 (discuss • contribs) 12:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Great, I am happy we got it sorted out in the end. Do you know how to link to other sections or do you need help with that? (Just in case: Use [ [ # Name of the section| Name that appears on the text ] ]) SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 12:51, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, me too :) I do know how to do it, but thank you though. It is already done :) Raquelita96 (discuss • contribs) 12:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Anonymity in help forums
&#8593; Back to top

Posted a first draft for this section on the book, I wasn't sure whether to refer to the fact that cyberbullying will be discussed in more detail, or whether to talk more about disinhibition and the psychology behind such behaviour. Please feel free to recommend any changes or edit and add as you wish, I know some things may also need to be moved around and I am not very confident with referencing. Lilygeorgia96 (discuss • contribs) 11:57, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey I just edited your reference, as it did not have a name disclaimed. Agian, please read through the reference section on the discussion page and then add your references to the table. :) Thanks. SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 17:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Cyberbulling
I would like to talk about cyberstalking here, i think it would be quite interesting and it would add a lot to this section. --Raquelita96 (discuss • contribs) 16:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC) &#8593; Back to top

hiya just edited one of your references and put it in a citation format :) Raquelita96 (discuss • contribs) 18:22, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * thank you very much I was struggling with its placement! The hardships!--DunkyNG (discuss • contribs) 18:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey I just edited your references, as they all do not have a name disclaimed. Please read through the reference section on the discussion page and then add your references to the table. I know this post is still under construction, still I marked some references, as they only contain a link, I think that might not be sufficient. :) SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 17:00, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * hiya, thank you for doing that, however I'm not entirely sure I understand what you mean by they do not have a name disclaimed? I have read the references section, and would also just like to clarify that you would like me to add every reference I used into this table? --DunkyNG (discuss • contribs) 18:36, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hey, I mean for instance: ref name="Papacharissi 2013" if you only use ref, than the next person using the same reference cannot do so, but has to type in the whole reference and additionally then it will appear twice at the bottom. Yeah if you find time to add all the references to that table would be ideal, so that other people can check whenever they use the same source. :) But as I added the names already and as the time is short till tmr's deadline, maybe you can skip that if you do not have the time for that. The more important thing for me would be rather to add the references to those, that only contain a link and a note from me with "Reference required", do you agree? SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 20:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I have referenced all of them to the APA guidelines to the best of my knowledge if you would like to take a look, if it is correct I can go and edit and correctly reference other sections to save time and make the book look slick and cohesive--DunkyNG (discuss • contribs) 23:43, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I also agree it is more important to fix references at this stage than contributing to the reference table, it can be time consuming for everybody and though a really nice thought, might be not practical at this point when I doubt people will be looking at the table after each reference they make to see if someone has already used it. Rather they will try to get their own section done as fast as possible and to the best of their ability, what do you think? Alternatively if we wish to push ahead with the referencing table is there some way to alert everyone in the wikibooks project to do this as I am sure alot of people are not aware of our desires to completely fill it up--DunkyNG (discuss • contribs) 00:11, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hey, it looks great:) Sorry if I sounded a little bit harsh yesterday, I was a little bit stressed out fixing references for 3h:) Thanks for your edit! -SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 11:05, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey I wasn't sure if it was yourself or someone else that wrote it, but I just wanted to say the section of this where you talk about self bullying and people posting hateful comments to themselves is super interesting and I really enjoyed reading it! I think it was a really good idea to include it and I don't think it's something that is discussed enough :) Eilidhmcauley (discuss • contribs) 13:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Yeah it was me :) Thank you very much, its great to hear you found it interesting, as I was researching it more thoroughly I got very interested in the subject too and agree it really is an issue that is looked over too often when thinking of self-harm and cyber bullying in a wider sense. I'm glad you enjoyed it.--DunkyNG (discuss • contribs) 13:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

hey, just added a section on cyberstalking, let me know what you think. :) Raquelita96 (discuss • contribs) 13:59, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * it looks very nice and thorough, I'm going to add a section about the typology and categories of cyberstalking, I think it will bring it all together nicely, but good job!--DunkyNG (discuss • contribs) 15:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * hey, thanks! I tried my best haha :) Thank you very much for reading it and for the feedback, and please do go ahead! This is a collaborative effort and I really am not sure what else to say about it, so if you find something interesting to add then go ahead!! Again, thank you! And good job to you as well on your other section, I found it really interesting to read :) Raquelita96 (discuss • contribs) 15:22, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

hiya, I added a section about the different types of cyberstalking as well as the different types of cyberstalker. I tried to create a link back to anonymity as I feel it had strayed a little in the middle, I hope you agree with what I have done! Good job to you as well, all of your sections are nice and concise and make interesting reading :)--DunkyNG (discuss • contribs) 15:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

okay, thanks a lot for your edit. I think it looks very good now ! :) Raquelita96 (discuss • contribs) 15:42, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Hackers and Hacktivism
&#8593; Back to top

Added the first draft here but still need to incorporate links, I hope this is an acceptable, simple introduction to the topic and how it fits in with the public and private spheres. If you want to suggest any changes or make them yourself do feel free. Lilygeorgia96 (discuss • contribs) 20:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey, I just edited the references, as they are missing names. As you are going to complete the other references, please read through the reference section on the discussion page before that and add your reference to the table. SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 16:55, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi again, lilygeorgia96 is without internet right now, however, I have contributed a large amount to this topic and would be able to do the referencing as soon as it is clarified exactly what is desired :) --DunkyNG (discuss • contribs) 18:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I added some wikipedia links to tie it all together Lilygeorgia96 (discuss • contribs) 19:29, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey, great :) I just answered you in the cyberbullying section, here it is pretty much the same thing. There are some references that only contain a link, it would be the priority to complete those with author, date, name, retrieved date etc. Please remember to add '' to make the title italic according APA citation. As there was no information about the reference, but the link, I haven't added a name, so if you edit the references, please use &lt; ref name= "type name in here"&gt; Whole long reference &lt;/ ref &gt;. For the second time using it, it would be &lt;ref name "same name as before" / &gt; and nothing else (no &lt;/ ref &gt; and no whole reference, no link, nothing and the slash is important here and makes the difference) Aaaaand if you then still have the time, adding all sources to the referencing table would be fab! If there are more questions or if you still could not understand (sure it is a little bit hard to understand it from reading my explanation), just ping me again. ;) SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 20:54, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Whooops sorry, forgot to removed the markup. :) SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 20:54, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hiya, I have just fixed the referencing I believe, if you would like to take a look and tell me if it is correct that would be great!--DunkyNG (discuss • contribs) 23:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Looks good, too:) Thanks for editing it! SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 11:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

hey just fixed your quote and added another one, will soon be posting something on sam pepper :) 14:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

hello, in the end I felt like talking about Ferguson would be more interesting than Sam Pepper. However, please tell me what you think? I don't think there was much more to say about it rather than just facts, but hey I tried :) Just added it, have a look-see :) Raquelita96 (discuss • contribs) 15:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

thanks for contributing, it provides a relevant example of their work. I edited some of the things you said to make the post flow together as a whole. --DunkyNG (discuss • contribs) 15:38, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

ah i'm glad it's good! thank you for editing it so it works together as a whole. Raquelita96 (discuss • contribs) 15:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

sorry I haven't been so active, thank you both for fixing this I really appreciate it! Lilygeorgia96 (discuss • contribs) 16:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC) the section is looking great now thanks for the contributions, great job!!! Lilygeorgia96 (discuss • contribs) 16:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Online Piracy and S.O.P.A
&#8593; Back to top

Hey guys, I've seen your post and I think it is a really good start off. I am missing the linking to our topic, meaning how does this shape the private and public sphere? Maybe you can add that, people knowing they possibly commit a crime, also know that they are save in their private sphere, but at the same time, they can actually be tracked down (via online footprint) - an invasion in their private sphere, they are not aware of or if they are, they would use a lot of possibilities (i.e. VPN) to hide? And truly the piracy changed the whole entertainment industry, look as napster as you mentioned, but also spotify, netflix, prime etc. - You've already described it, but just an additional sentence to link this to our topic, i.e. online piracy has shaped public behaviour even outside the online media: many people used these offerings, and they felt they were doing just, so that the legislation could not change (just look at the anonymous campaign agains a EU law to restrict online piracy), resulting in the change of a whole industry. Let me hear your thoughts about this! :) SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 13:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC) EDIT Also, do you have nice references, that you can add? Your post is still missing markups and references, I think these would be helpful especially for people who are researching further about this topic! (Don't forget to add them to the table on this page ;) ) SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 13:22, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Deep Web
Hey, I just was just thinking this would be a really good topic for anonymity but also Public and Private spheres. I know it's pretty late to add a big topic like this though, but I know some people in my seminar group that are looking for new contributions for the wikibook too, so they could help me out. But since this is all about pages on the web that cannot be found easily "publicly" (i.e. can't be found in your common search engines), and are usually very private, it's very relevant to this topic in my opinion. Let me know if you think this is where it could fit in the wikibook, since it's where a lot of piracy and hacking on there, but also private information like for big corporations. Sleepyzoe (discuss • contribs) 17:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey, sure sounds good to be added here, go for it ! It does sound quite interesting, and if it's gonna give everybody in your group a little extra to talk about then even better :) If it correlates to the hacking and hacktivism topic we can always make a little cross-reference thing? I'm not sure how those are done but maybe adding like a link like [see section 7] or something? Go for it! :) --Raquelita96 (discuss • contribs) 18:22, 9 March 2016 (UTC).

Great, thanks, I'll let my group know, and I'll start it later tonight. Sleepyzoe (discuss • contribs) 18:39, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * i was reading your thread, if you need to make cross-reference within the book you can do the word you to use as link-  without -  between  hackers -  . hope this is useful :) Everynameistaken15 (discuss • contribs) 20:46, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'll be sure to do that! Sleepyzoe (discuss • contribs) 20:48, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * to actually see it you should come to the edit section here, cause i just realised that it transforms what i wrote in ref too even with the "-". sorry! but yeah if you go to edit you'll see the right template here :) Everynameistaken15 (discuss • contribs) 20:55, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * hello, thank you very much for this tip! :) I have just tried doing it in the book (section 1.6.3.4 Instagram) and I don't think it works- It's a total mess! :( I have no clue how to fix this or what I did wrong? I was hoping you would know? Thanks! :) Raquelita96 (discuss • contribs) 21:48, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * hi, yes, i just had a look, you just didn't remove the "-" between [[ and words. That is, there are no "-", I just put them to separate so you could see how! just remove them and it should work. So (you need to look at this from edit section) if i wanted to link say the word instagram to your section Hackers and Hacktivism i would write

instagram

Obvs, now it links to the hackers section on this discussion page cause i've done it here, but if you do it in a book section it'll to the section of the book you wanted, not here. also, don't worry if the link brings you back to the main page, because if the section you are linking too is not filled yet it just acts that way. once there's content it'll direct to that section only :) I saw that you are linking to cyberbullying so that's not a problem, but thought i'd tell you if you happen to link to sections not yet completed! Everynameistaken15 (discuss • contribs) 23:50, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Ahhhh thanks a bunch!!! I was really struggling to make it work, turns out after all I'm really not so good at this! :( I did wonder for a split second why the link didn't lead me anywhere at first, (basically when someone wrote the section's title page they misspelt 'cyberbullying' and it took me a looong time to realise and now its fixed!) but you gave very clear instructions (for dummies like me heh) so managed to fix it, thanks a lot for the help! :) --Raquelita96 (discuss • contribs) 16:59, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * haha, no worries, i understand the struggle! took me four days to understand all the mark ups ahah Everynameistaken15 (discuss • contribs) 17:57, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Just wrote a rough draft of this now, I'm going to listen to a 40 minute long podcast about the deep web now to see if I can think of anything else relevant to this, and I want to find more references, but otherwise I don't think it needs much more in my opinion, unless you can think of anything else. At the very least I'll add the podcast to the External links bit :) Sleepyzoe (discuss • contribs) 18:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * hey, just read it and looks good! It was very interesting to read, I had never even heard of Deep Web and what it was. I think you did a great job! :) Also like you said if there are any of your teammates that would still like to contribute, then please go ahead and do so, cause the deadline is coming up soon and this is a collaborative work, so the more people the better :) Raquelita96 (discuss • contribs) 15:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Security and Sphere Invasions
&#8593; Back to top This is a space for discussion of the content we will produce for the 'security and social hacking' segment, and its subheadings. 14buchananL (discuss • contribs) 17:42, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi again! Just tagging you all here. Thought this would be a better space for us to discuss ideas for this section - if you guys are interested in contributing, that is. Ive created a sub-heading section called 'Private sphere invasions' which I am going to work on. Feel fee to add your own. There's lots of things to talk about with security and hacking as it is so we shouldn't run short on ideas. 14buchananL (discuss • contribs) 17:47, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey, I moved your section up here, so that it is in the correct order. Please don't forget to create the subsections - although tbh, I think the subsections overlap with all other topics and I don't think we should repeat ourselves again at this point - please be careful of that. Also we have a section about tracking and one part about privacy rights already - I think it is nice to have a part about security and hacking, but maybe you can get in contact with the respect persons to think about whether we should move this section up and closer to the other two topics (or the other way round). :) SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 17:15, 6 March 2016 (UTC) 'EDIT I just realized that we also have a part about hacking already. Maybe you should get in touch with the respect peoples first before working further on this topic? If we can add your content to the sections that are already there, it could make our page less confusing? :) - SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 18:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes I'm intending for this to be different from the "Hacking and Hacktivism" section, and I will be keeping up to date with the content posted in this section to ensure there are no clashes. If there happens to be content on my section that seems like it would fit better in other categories then I will transfer it over and adjust the heading. The heading is perhaps a bit misleading, I might change it, as I want to write about how private spheres are shrinking due to invasions from the system/government, which is sort of hacking but not really. I'll have a better think about this throughout the week. Also, thanks for fixing the order of my post! I'm still getting to grips with the ins and outs of wikibooking. 14buchananL (discuss • contribs) 18:18, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Yeah that sounds perfect to me. Me too, after discussing with the girls talking about the politics section, I uploaded content to political communication, but we might adjust that whole part, depending on whether it overlaps with the other parts. ;) If you change the name, please remember to change/add them on the discussion page as well. Happy editing! SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 18:26, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

EDIT I have changed the title of this so that it makes more sense. It seems like most of what we are talking about in this section is sphere invasions and the security issued which allow this to happen rather than social hacking. If this has caused any problems, please let me know. 14buchananL (discuss • contribs) 20:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Private Sphere Invasions
&#8593; Back to top

Hello all! In this section I will be discussing invasions of private spheres outwith social media, this is so that it does not clash with the section further up on 'Hacking and Hackitivism'. Here, i will be discussing concerns over privacy invasions though the use of new technologies such as contactless cards and the iPhone finger print scanning feature, as well as the concern that the government has the ability to track its citizens through both. I am sure there are many more examples of this, so if anybody has any ideas which they would like to contribute, feel free to discuss ideas here and contribute to the main page. 14buchananL (discuss • contribs) 15:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello 14buchananL, I was just wondering how you are getting on with this and if you need any help finishing it or if everything is under control. Tellegee (discuss • contribs) 02:00, 11 March 2016 (UTC) team Revenant HATEFUL 5!

Hi! I've not god too much left to do here. I've sorted all of my references. I just need to add more bulk to my paragraphs and finish off the sections. Feel free to add anything you think will be relevant. 14buchananL (discuss • contribs) 13:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Public Sphere Invasions
&#8593; Back to top

Hey, I've added some content there just so its not empty and I'll return to it to improve it and add references as well. I don't believe anyone has talked about this so far and would like to also cover 'like-farming'. I think the invasions I am looking at are more subtle than hacktivism and other public sphere content already being looked at. Braydencoulman (discuss • contribs) 16:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I just moved your comment down here, so we can discuss about the content to the fullest :D I like your approach really much, it really differs from the upper sections. About the filter bubble: in the upper part about political communication these are also mentioned, but in a different way. Maybe you can have a look that this, too: Bohannon, J. (2015). Is Facebook keeping you in a political bubble? American Association for the Advancement of Science. Retrieved 03/06, 2016, from http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/05/facebook-keeping-you-political-bubble I mentioned it very briefly though, but maybe a linking within the book could be nice? I.e. saying that this can effect the public opinion especially in a political way [link to the political communication section]. Makes our book looking so fancy :D.

Then about the content, I am not saying you are wrong :D don't get me wrong here, and I know your are still working on this, but I'd like to give you some input, that maybe helps? :) I totally see that you are approaching this from another point of view, but maybe we can make it a little bit more controversial? Because the quote says: "But the thing is that you don’t decide what gets in." The question here (which is a nice link to determinism btw) is, whether it is the people, asking for possibilities to keep themselves in the bubble (to get rid of the "bullshit" - sorry :D), that made technology for innovate and offer new services or whether it was technology, offering these possibilities, so that people are effected by i.e. the spiral of silence, gatekeeper effects and multi-step-flow of communication? My point is, that both are to blame, those who invade our private spheres and shape them, but also we, as we create them as well. I am looking forward to see your further posting! Let me hear your thoughts about this! SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 13:36, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * On one hand I think that is right, because when you have the basic settings i.e. on facebook, the new "Gatekeeper", meaning the platforms, but also the people who are posting online (who probably retrieved their information from other mass media, where information was filtered AS WELL - so confusing, right?), decide what information is presented for you to consume.
 * On the other hand I think, that your are also part of the problem. If your have look at my third wikibook exercise on my page SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) some people and me discussed a lot about that people tend to consume information that support their own opinion. Everything else is sometimes ignored or consumed, but not received as relevant, but brushed aside as "bullshit". Additionally they can change their settings, i.e. they can filter what kind of topics they want to see/to read on news side. Reasons for that could also be the information overload that some people are not willing to deal with. Consequently they are actively keeping themselves in the bubble.

Hey, thanks for your input! I've begun developing points you made and will link to the political communication section also. I'm not sure how much overlap these sections will have but I'll make sure they are separate by the end. However I have begun touching on people's tendency to consume information that aligns with their opinion, and their own filtering that takes place to achieve this. I will also probably bring in determinism as you pointed out it fits nicely into this section. Another few things I would like to bring in are echo chambers which have an effect on the public sphere and relates to my points as well as advertisements which are caused by our filter bubbles. I will make sure to link to other sections when necessary and make our page coherent and easy to navigate. Braydencoulman (discuss • contribs) 18:14, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey, sounds really interesting! Don't worry too much about the repetitions - I only meant to say that the topics should not be completely the same (what it isn't the way you put it), but as you link to other parts of course there will be some overlapping and I think that's totally fine and necessary! :) SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 18:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Should we add a section on trolling to this part? Eilidh no.1 (discuss • contribs) 11:22, 10 March 2016 (UTC) Yes we can use this space to discuss trolling here and you can go ahead and start writing in the trolling section I just made under public sphere invasions. Braydencoulman (discuss • contribs) 14:47, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I just edited the references, as they had no names. Please read through the reference section on the discussion page and add your reference to the table when you edit your post further. SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 16:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC) Also can you add the reference to the ted-link? I think that just leaving the link there is not enough for referencing. :) SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 16:47, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey I just read your new post about the filter bubbles - I really like it! I think it is a great idea to combine both, filter bubble and algorithmic gatekeepers, in one post and compare them the way you did. It is as if you have 2 thesis which show 2 different views. Good job! :) I upgraded your quote, see if you like it (because now it is not in the reading flow anymore). SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 23:28, 10 March 2016 (UTC) Thanks! Also thanks for upgrading the quote it makes the page look nicer Braydencoulman (discuss • contribs) 13:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC) Hi I just fixed edited your referencing so that it is all in the APA format, hope everything else goes smoothly :)--DunkyNG (discuss • contribs) 12:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)  Hey thanks for fixing the references, hope you're getting on ok as well Braydencoulman (discuss • contribs) 13:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey, I think we should mention how trolling can lead to actual threats and develop into serious situations. People can take trolling to the extreme and I think this could be a good end to the trolling section as the invasions of the public sphere transitions from digital space into the real world in some scenarios. Braydencoulman (discuss • contribs) 14:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)  I added some stuff to the end and i mention bigger threats and also link back to the other sections, could develop serious threats through public sphere more but not sure if it's being covered somewhere else Braydencoulman (discuss • contribs) 15:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Theorists
&#8593; Back to top

Zizi Papacharissi
&#8593; Back to top

Jürgen Habermas
&#8593; Back to top
 * I've put a cursory intro for Habermas, feel free to edit that as much as you please, I know my writing styles a bit inelegant. If anyone has read Haberman's "institutional criteria" for preconditions to the public sphere, do you think it's valid? I have it ready to go up, but am unsure if it is relevant. Blackflagdog (discuss • contribs) 14:23, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * As you are discussing about content and not structure anymore, I moved your content down here. Hope you don't mind :)
 * I just added a paragraph about Habermas most famous theory. I think one should mention that one, although it does not explicitly say anything about public and private sphere, but it talks about i.e. language and communication as the most important part of society (which is built by interactions of individuals in a public environment). Also the last sentence I include maybe links it to our topic.
 * Additionally I added a part about media as gatekeepers for privileged message senders, because I think it is interesting, that (differently from some other theorists) talks about a share of voice.
 * Finally I changed the reference a little bit, as I have a online resource that might be helpful to readers. I also added the reference to the table on the discussion page ( please remember to do that, so that everyone can work with it) :). - SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 20:54, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I just added a quote, that could be nice and I also added a link to the internet/digital age. Also I saw that Habermas says "European society in the middle ages showed no indication of a public sphere as a “unique realm distinct from the private sphere” (Habermas, 1989) - should we include this, too? - SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 19:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * That sounds great. I think you should add that, Habermas's theories often relate to past European society, so I feel like the context that's provided from the emergence of spheres is important. Thanks for finding thatǃ Blackflagdog (discuss • contribs) 13:19, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Cool, I just did so, see if you like it. I also edited the quote :) SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 19:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Mike S. Schäfer
&#8593; Back to top

I just edited the references, as the same one was disclaimed several times. Please read through the reference section on the discussion page and add your reference to the table. SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 16:42, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Brian Loader
&#8593; Back to top Brian was born in Zimbabwe in 1958. He grew up in the UK before he began studying at Southampton University in 1978 and continued studies till 1981 where he achieved an honours degree in politics and Sociology he taught in Southampton before he gained a masters in 1989 in Public policy from university of Bristol. He then continued with his teaching in the University of Teesside during his period there he became the founding editor of the international journal of Information, Communication and Society. He is now part the University of York as a senior Lecturer and he follows his interests of New Media.

Cyber space divide

In this Brian loader introduces the prospect of an information society and how this will cause a cyberspace divide. Here Loader looks at how the internet will affect the private and the public spheres, he states that

“No sphere of life will be unaffected by the information revolution”.

Because of this loader looks at the implications on social and political structures, as information and communication technologies (ITCs) will be an ever apparent part of life. Loader continues to look at how this will affect the world by looking at the idea of the cyberspace and how this will allow those who use it to be not only “information rich” but cyberspace will “offers liberating possibilities of ‘ordinary’ people constructing new identities which free them from the imposed classifications of class, race, gender or disability associated with material space”. This is loaders idea of people having a persona online where they are free from there constraints they may have in their everyday lives. He also adds the idea that anonymity will play a massive role in inventing an alternative version of themselves, and this will only be achieved through “virtual spaces”. Loader evidently concludes that the information society will be further developed by social forces who will lead it to become a space for people with in the private and the public spheres.

Young citizens in the digital age

Here loader continues his idea but by looking at youth citizens and their involvement in ITCs with politics. He introduces the idea of Cultural displacement with young citizens and the political systems that are in place, and how due to information communication technologies (ITCs) it generates a disconnect.

Firstly Loader provides us with an explanation to cultural displacement. Loader sees the disconnect of youth with the political system is due to the politicians as they “Appear distant and self-absorbed and unable to empathise with young people’s experiences of the dramatically changing social and cultural world” he believes that this disconnect is because of youth culture and how it doesn’t relate with old political systems because of new ITCs and because of this it cause a contrast with youth “communication spaces” with this in mind loader also continues to confirm that this provides a “digital divide” the idea that through these channels youth are divided from current politics and are more infatuated by celebrity culture.

Loader also comments on the idea of individualisation that is in youth culture and new media. Brian defines individualisation as the “individualised agendas characterised by the ongoing activates of choosing between various lifestyles and fashion statement shaping and expressing ones persona, celebrating body forms and artistry, and developing and managing social networks of friends, family and associates” Loader here is stating that youth culture with the introduction of new media has led to a decline in political culture due to the youth having more pressing personal agendas to attend to, he backs this idea up by looking at the decline in the amount of voters (estimated 37% in 2005 voted) aged 18 to 25 because they are “disaffected citizens”

Loader does however indicate the importance of new media and politics where he indicates that youth culture will offer more opportunity for understanding politics. This due to the fact new media and its involvement within the political system will “engage in political deliberation and challenge state authority” In turn Brian Loader believes that new media will help with overall engagement in youth activity within the politics of today with help of new media. Lubo95 (discuss • contribs) 00:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Nicholas Garnham
&#8593; Back to top

Nicholas Garnham is a British researcher and Emeritus professor at the University of Westminster. He is the first one who used the term “cultural industries” for the first time, with which he distances himself from the accepted meaning of cultural industry connected to mass culture. In his Capitalism and Communication, he argues that “cultural industries” are institutions in which the production and spread of mass culture are influenced by capitalism. So, according to Garnham, publishing industry, record companies and business organizations use capitalism in order to achieve more profits. Garnham is also the most responsible for introducing the “public sphere’ notion into the media debate, arguing that, especially in the case of television, public service is being replaced by privatized markets. Television offers to viewers few options from which they can choose from and it has become increasingly subjected to deregulation and privatization under market control. On the contrary, according to him, public service manages to satisfy more people, based on what they like, rather than just satisfying those tastes that help to increase profit. A market allocation of cultural resources, combined with the destruction of public service media, threatens ‘public communication’ which, in his opinion, lies at the heart of democracy.

Lincoln Dahlberg
&#8593; Back to top Extending the public sphere through cyberspace: The case of Minnesota E-Democracy

The Habermasian Public Sphere: A Specification of the Idealized Conditions of Democratic Communication

GConcilio94 (discuss • contribs) 13:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey this sounds really good, how about you just add this directly to the book?:) Or are you still working on the content? Then I'm sorry :) I said nothing. - SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 13:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey, this is just a quote from an article, I'm trying to find more about him, as soon as I have the whole content ready I will upload it to the book! :) GConcilio94 (discuss • contribs) 13:45, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay cool. I think if you like this quote you can also just embed it like it is here on the actual page, when time has come ;). - SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 15:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I think I will do that! GConcilio94 (discuss • contribs) 12:11, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey, I read the first draft of your text and I think it is really good. We should remove the "under construction part" because I think it is a good starting point already and everything here is under construction right ;) - I added some markup, maybe we can add more. Also do you have a link to a webpage, that describes the Minnesota E-Democracy project? I think it would be great to offer people a link to that in the text and to enhance the hypertext structure! Oh and I just wanted to say, I really love the idea of this section about theorists!- SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 12:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey, thank you very much and thanks for the markup, I wanted to do that later (that's why I wrote under construction), but I will just add more markup and I still have to put the references in it. One of the references explains how Dahlberg dealt with the Minnesota E-Democracy project and gives an outline about it so it'll be useful if people want to know more about the project. I will also try to find more information about the project iteself and see if it has an official website! Thank you again and thank you for your help! GConcilio94 (discuss • contribs) 13:24, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That sounds good! Is that reference available online? Because then this might be sufficient already, except you want to search for more, then go ahead :D. If the Dahlberg reference is online, maybe you can add your it an external link, too? I mean, we should include it as an external link in this section, but we surely should add it in the External Link section at the bottom, too! I think this can be very interesting for people to find more about his theory but also about the project. Also, I just deleted "Under construction" then, because you only need to add the references and probably some hyperlinks, that should be possible at any point. :) SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 14:22, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes it is, all the sources I've used are available online! I've decided to put the links basically everywhere ahah so people will see them for sure! There are hyperlinks in this section and in the external link section as well, plus I've put the full references in the references table! Thanks for deleting it! GConcilio94 (discuss • contribs) 17:28, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Haha on no, I think we misunderstood each other :D I meant the book page not the discussion one (although it might be helpful here, too). I just copied your link and posted it to the book page External link section. Do you think one should add them at the Dahlberg section, too (with a note, "For further research, bla bla bla)? - SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 19:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok I just added the Minnesota Source to the text as a link mentioning you as the link provider, still do you think the other source should appear on there as well? - SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 19:51, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh yeah I've got it wrong! Well I don't think writing for further research would be a good thing as I've used it as one of my main resources and you can find it in the references and in the external links section as well (thanks for that!), so the link to it in text seems like a better idea (thank you for that as well aha). Also I think I will delete the other source from the external links section and just leave it in the references. GConcilio94 (discuss • contribs) 21:41, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I deleted the other source but I added another external link to an article about the history of the MED project! GConcilio94 (discuss • contribs) 21:52, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

John Thompson
&#8593; Back to top

Just edited some references, as they had mistakes and repeatedly disclaimed the same reference used above. Please read through the reference introduction on this discussion page again. SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 15:20, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Integrating themes
&#8593; Back to top

Critical Review
&#8593; Back to top Hey guys, I'm going to be uploading my final draft of the critical review very soon. I am aware it's pretty close to the deadline but if anyone has anything quick they would like to add once I've uploaded or even if I've missed an interesting point then feel completely free to add it. Appreciate your help :) SophieNHayes (discuss • contribs) 15:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Glossary
&#8593; Back to top

I just started and added the first linking to the disambiguation on our book page. Still, a brief definition should be added here, too, about, what the three key terms (private/public sphere and digital age) are as soon as we have an overview in the disambiguation part - to make sure, that the definitions fit each other. SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 21:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Group Discussions
&#8593; Back to top

A Rival Dojo
hey guys, just thought maybe we could use this section to talk about this project and the section we will be working on together, (anonymity in the private sphere), especially since lily might not be finished by the time she leaves.

There is a huge problem with the first part of this topic, (altered narratives of the self), in which we were talking about how our online identity and performance is affected when we hide behind a username. Basically, someone made a different section without realising it was exactly the same as our one, and then someone else moved it places and assumed the problem was solved and that both topics can be used. However, they are not separate topics, they are literally the same one. I mentioned this to them and they didn't respond. I have checked the actual book, and they have uploaded a section that is identical to what we were going to be uploading. Again, I have brought notice to this but I really don't know what to do. Any suggestions? We are running out of time, and between this and the Hacker topic (that was uploaded after we claimed we were going to be doing it, again), we won't have as much to contribute. --Raquelita96 (discuss • contribs) 11:53, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey guys, we are just going to have to work around this and make our pieces as good as possible and attempt to approach our topics from a different angle, we can do this.--DunkyNG (discuss • contribs) 12:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess we have no other choice, and let's just hope they differ enough for everyone to see they aren't an exact repetition of what we are saying. --Raquelita96 (discuss • contribs) 17:07, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey, I also thought it would be useful, once we have written it all and uploaded it, we can write what we have done here in this table, since it will look neater and it will be easier to organize, maybe? just thought it could be useful. --Raquelita96 (discuss • contribs) 12:01, 9 March 2016 (UTC) &#8593; Back to top

This is a good idea, I also thought we could add a little section, perhaps in the cyberbullying, about cyberstalking.--DunkyNG (discuss • contribs) 20:50, 9 March 2016 (UTC) yes, this was already mentioned in the section of anonymity above, and it will be included in the section of cyberbullying rather than as a section of its own :). Raquelita96 (discuss • contribs) 22:14, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I've just added a section to the Hackers and Hacktivism regarding the origins of internet hacking as well as hackers necessity for anonymity and a section about political hacking. Hope it all looks okay.--DunkyNG (discuss • contribs) 22:14, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks that's great, much more well rounded now and I like the sources and examples you've chosen :) Lilygeorgia96 (discuss • contribs) 22:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

here is a link to an article that could be useful when discussing cyberstalking if you are wanting to encorporate some of its information in your post: http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~bsavatar/articles/Cyberstalking-NM&S02.pdf  thank you, there is the potential to discuss the ethics of hacktivism more if you feel it isn't covered enough--DunkyNG (discuss • contribs) 22:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Yeah, seems like a very interesting article, thank you very much! It will definitely be handy when we finish writing that section up. Thanks! :) --Raquelita96 (discuss • contribs) 22:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I am going to add a sub-section to the cyberbullying about anonymous self-harm, where users utilise the potential for anonymity as a cry for attention, do you think this is appropriate? --DunkyNG (discuss • contribs) 16:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

hello y'all!, yes I think that would be an interesting thing to write about, especially if you have a couple of sources to back it up with? try looking for something related to the psychology of it, that would sure be interesting! if not I am always keen to add to it if i think up something interesting to add :) i think its taking shape quite nicely! let's try and finish it all by today so that if anybody from other groups would still like to contribute or add a couple of things they have enough time to do so! Keep going, we're nearly there! :) Raquelita96 (discuss • contribs) 16:34, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

also hi, :), not sure if you have seen this little section for our group (as in A Rival Dojo) or our little table, but if you haven't i thought maybe you would like to add the things you will be talking about in the book in your section of our table? I think it could just make things more clear than the really big structure table, which kind of seems quite messy. Hope you see this on time, I realise that at this point you must be quite busy! :) --Raquelita96 (discuss • contribs) 16:38, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry, you're right I have been quite busy lately, I have already uploaded my topic into the book and have now completed the above table detailing my topics. Hope this makes things easier for you guys. Beespence1 (discuss • contribs) 12:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Ah no bother, I'm glad you saw this on time. :) Thanks for adding them to the table! :) 12:55, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

That addition to the cyberbullying section sounds very interesting, I look forward to reading it, I'm sure you have some good ideas and will be able to find relevant sources too. At this point if there is anything specific I can do to improve our group's section of the wikibook please do let me know, or anything at all :) - Lilygeorgia96 (discuss • contribs) 18:54, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I've uploaded the additional section to the cyber bullying, if you want to add anything or contribute please do so, feed back welcomed ;)--DunkyNG (discuss • contribs) 19:57, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

The C Team
&#8593; Back to top

Team 💯
&#8593; Back to top

Today we met up in person to discuss the project as a whole and how we feel about it. We would like to thank everyone for their contributions, but we do feel like the distributions of topics could have been better handled. Valesagasti (discuss • contribs) 11:40, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

We also discussed interacting with each other more and using this page as a means of keeping with what our group has done. I'm excited to see what our group produces! Marinieuw (discuss • contribs) 11:45, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@Valesagasti has kindly let me do the definition for Private Sphere as I felt I was not contributing enough so I will get that done tomorrow and if I come across anything that may be beneficial to any of you I will post it in the table below, Thanks again, Valentina --Amy Wardle (discuss • contribs) 20:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

lyndzcmedia Hi i have just read your comment on the table above and yes I would be more than happy to do that and you can discuss cookies etc i will be uploading my draft later on today so you will be able to see it later and then we can see if there is anything else we need to add --Amy Wardle (discuss • contribs) 12:35, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey, I thought it could be useful to have all our topics in a table, so if we find something interesting that everyone can use we can put it here. GConcilio94 (discuss • contribs) 13:40, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

if we all drop a message in here when we have uploaded our draft, we can all have a read and see if there's anything useful we can add to help each other :) Lyndzcmedia (discuss • contribs) 12:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I've just been adding bits and bobs constantly instead of uploading one big draft haha, so I already have some stuff down

That's a great idea Lyndsay, I've uploaded my drafts for the Dramaturgical Representation of the Self and Ancient Greek Theatre Notion of Persona and Lincoln Dahlberg, feel free to edit both if you find anything interesting to add or any mistake you want to correct (:  GConcilio94 (discuss • contribs) 13:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

hey guys! i was jut having a quick look at the book and i realised i don't have to write any general intro to narrative of the self, so if you guys want any help with your topics please let me know, cause I want to help as much as possible :) --Valesagasti (discuss • contribs) 17:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey, if you want you can help me with the Digital Photography and Picture Sharing section (: I've already updated something on the book if you want to take a look at it, I'm still writing it now but I'll tell you when I'm done with it and then you can add more content? How does that sound to you? GConcilio94 (discuss • contribs) 17:56, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

yeah that sounds good!! let me know when you are done and ill see if there is anything else i can find out and add to it :) --Valesagasti (discuss • contribs) 18:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey, I'm done with it, I think you could talk about snapchat and how people feel like they can have some privacy on it because you can only see the pictures for 10 seconds, so it feels like a private space, but at the same time people can take screenshots of your private pictures and publish them online. So at the same time it can be seen as a private/public digital space GConcilio94 (discuss • contribs) 20:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

could anyone help me, I am struggling with embedding a link to another Wiki page? I've been doing it the same way as external links but it just keeps saying the page does not exist? Thank you! --Amy Wardle (discuss • contribs) 15:15, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

hiya! , pardon my intrusion on your own personal group discussion :) I was just scrolling through and saw this! Yesterday it took me literal hours to get it done, I struggled quite a lot (and even got myself reported for spam from editting the page too much somehow! ) But i finally managed!! When you link to a wikipedia link internally it must be in this format: page title. It must have two of these things ( ) a w and a :, then the name that appears in the wikipedia article, and after the |, the word you want to appear as a link. For example, private sphere. You can check how this look when editing this page :) hope this helps! :) Raquelita96 (discuss • contribs) 16:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Raquelita96 thank you so much! I finally got it hahaha it took me ages! That was a great help :) --Amy Wardle (discuss • contribs) 16:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC) No problem at all! Glad I could help :) Raquelita96 (discuss • contribs) 17:04, 10 March 2016 (UTC) http://reader.eblib.com/(S(pnz35jjx14p2snac2cmlqmq2))/Reader.aspx? p=1180919&o=289&u=XUrrhDRQu0iWEFZzj%2fDyPcKm2lM%3d&t=1457628980&h=F0CA984256821B10B7253BC33F857A1B9833EAF8&s=42989843&ut=879&pg=1&r=img&c=-1&pat=n&cms=-1&sd=2 this should help you with the private sphere definition! :)--Amy Wardle (discuss • contribs) 16:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

hey! so i uploaded the snapchat part, but I'm not sure if its alright, if you have time could you give it a look and let me know if i need to change something? i am still not done referencing but ill finish that later tonight :) Valesagasti (discuss • contribs) 19:16, 10 March 2016 (UTC) RE: hey, I took a look at it and everything seems fine! I deleted the under construction part as it looks perfect!GConcilio94 (discuss • contribs) 14:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Hiya guys, do any of you know how to correctly reference laws by any chance?

hey! emm i have actually no clue... with the references I'm just putting as much information of where i got it as i can, but honestly i don't think I'm doing mine right... Valesagasti (discuss • contribs) 11:44, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

hey guys! I've uploaded my draft and I think I am done. Had a read of everyone else and it's looking good! If anyone is still having some stress with wiki markup, this markup page has a lot of stuff :) Happy 5pm when it comes!!!! Lyndzcmedia (discuss • contribs) 13:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Lyndzcmedia Hi I've also uploaded my draft and read everyones and they all look really good! We are defiantly living up to our team name:) --Amy Wardle (discuss • contribs) 13:54, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I've uploaded my drafts too!! No idea if I referenced a lot of it correctly but oh well.

Revenant Hateful Five
&#8593; Back to top

Hi!So we now have a group section that we can use for discussions. How are you all getting on with the project? I'm just typing up my section on 'Private Sphere Invasions' which you are all welcome to contribute too if you have any ideas. 14buchananL (discuss • contribs) 15:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey, I've posted some work on the public sphere invasions section but I've just found a really useful exercise to get to grips with editing because that's what I've found to be most stressful in this whole assignment. If anyone is still struggling with the editing side of things you should try out the Wikipedia Adventure Braydencoulman (discuss • contribs) 16:26, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

That's great thank you! Should come in very useful when it comes to fixing the presentation of the book. I'm hoping to have my section on Contactless Bank Cards up on the main book page by the end of the night and it would be really helpful if a couple of you guys could read over it for me and suggest edits etc. I'll keep you all posted on this. 14buchananL (discuss • contribs) 20:27, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey guys I have no idea what I'm doing or how to edit or anything... is this even how you comment or what you do? I will have a look at thing as well. This page is overwhelming... --Eilidh no.1 (discuss • contribs) 20:39, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Eilidh! Don't stress, we will work together to get through this. It's all very overwhelming at first, that's for sure. Have you got any ideas for a topic you would like to talk about/contribute to? 14buchananL (discuss • contribs) 20:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah defo is... well I was thinking about writing about wiki leaks but I do not know 100 percent yet and also if anyone is already doing this or is it is relevant. I need to do more research... I am however wondering how to add references to this properly like with the numbers? Any ideas guys? cheers Eilidh no.1 (discuss • contribs) 20:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC) hey there's a little book that u can click on above this text box that if you hover over it says reference, u just click it to add a reference at end of sentence and copy the reference on to the box. U can find out more through that Wikipedia link I sent, remember to switch back over to wikibooks after using it though because I stayed on Wikipedia and I thought I had lost all my work but was just on Wikipedia instead of wikibooks. Braydencoulman (discuss • contribs) 21:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

this was an excellant idea to create this little bit as the rest of the page is so confusing and I keep messing up the table. Like said it is very overwhelming. I am going to try finish my section and then add more in somewhere however this is difficult due to the topics being taken amongst the other users Tellegee (discuss • contribs) 21:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks that is super helpful! yeah I like our section as obviously this has so many people on it and so many ideas it is impossible to read and contribute to everything so this helps it seem less crazy... Maybe we should all try come up with sections and we can let each other know here and then add to each others work as well as working on our own? I feel like some people have claimed a section and that is not how this works... anyone should be free to add to sections where they can give extra information. Do you guys not agree? Eilidh no.1 (discuss • contribs) 21:48, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

yes I agree, there is sections I would find very easy and intersting to complete however people said a few weeks ago they are doing it and I have been waiting for them to be uploaded and still waiting for the section to be complete which I think is very unfair to the people willing to contribute #Tellegee (discuss • contribs) 22:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I have a section I'm working on, public sphere invasions, I want to cover stuff I've already wrote and introduce like farming and link to technological and cultural determinism also. You can look at the discussion page for that section and see if you'd be interested in adding anything in! Braydencoulman (discuss • contribs) 22:22, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

ok cool I will see what I can find and do some research and try and add to this... Thank you. Eilidh no.1 (discuss • contribs) 22:45, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

guys how do we know who has created the headings? can we just add to other peoples because how are we supposed to ask if that is ok when we don't know who has made them? Eilidh no.1 (discuss • contribs) 23:07, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe best to check the schedule table further up and look who is in the 'contributers' box on the right. Just leave a comment in the discussion section of whatever part you would like to contribute to and someone will get back to you. 14buchananL (discuss • contribs) 01:49, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

guys do you think if i created a section on wiki leaks and a section on trolling? do you think these would be relevant? feel free to add to these. Eilidh no.1 (discuss • contribs) 03:41, 10 March 2016 (UTC) Hey iv'e replied to you on the discussion bit for the topic, I'll add trolling in the now and we can work on it there Braydencoulman (discuss • contribs) 14:34, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

HEY to the Hateful 5!! How is everyone getting on? I know there was a bit of a discussion earlier, I was wondering if everyone is feeling A-OK about tomorrows deadline? Tellegee (discuss • contribs) 23:04, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey! So far I've got a kind of shortened version of all my topics up on the book. Tomorrow im going to read though them and try flesh them out a bit. Added something to the Glossary and have my references in.. took me a while to figure out how to do it but i think i've done it right. Just finishing touches needed really, but ill do that in the morning in time for the deadline. How's your article on the theorists going? 14buchananL (discuss • contribs) 01:05, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Morning, sounds good! at the minute I am currently trying to do a little more research on him. I did not think it would be as difficult as it has turned out to be! hopefully in the morning I will have a fresher mind and will be able to sail through it Tellegee (discuss • contribs) 01:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi everyone! I've finished my section on Private Sphere invasions, so if anyone would like any extra help with their sections before the deadline just let me know. This has certainly been much more challenging than i'd expected but i think we have worked great as a team. We're nearly there! 14buchananL (discuss • contribs) 14:07, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey Laura, thanks that would be nice actually. I have a problem with the reference numbers. My section is on Zizi Papacharissi. At the end of my first paragraph i have an online reference and the number is 67 but i am pretty sure that this is the wrong number. Do you know how to correct that one? If not it's ok :) Nikolas135 (discuss • contribs) 14:39, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi i will have a look at this issue and see if I can resolve it :) 14buchananL (discuss • contribs) 15:02, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey, i'm not sure if i can add anymore because I'm going to Glasgow soon, hope you all manage ok and feel free to add to public sphere invasions if you have anything you think would work well there Braydencoulman (discuss • contribs) 14:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi! That's great, time to relax now. I'll have a quick read over your section and see if theres anything i can add. 14buchananL (discuss • contribs) 15:03, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey team, Thats me also finished. If anyone would like to add anything to he section that you think I have missed please feel free 15:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

The Team
&#8593; Back to top

Brandon Cool
&#8593; Back to top Hey guys, just thought we could use this to discuss any ideas for contributions to the page/discussion area here. Since we're meeting later today, I think it'd be a good idea if we post anything we'd like help on or anything we'd like reviewed on here, and work as a group to refine each others ideas and entries. Hope this idea is some help :) Blackflagdog (discuss • contribs) 13:02, 7 March 2016 (UTC)  Hey guys, I know we're all working on our own pieces in preparation for the submission date, but does anyone need proofreading or help? I could use someone to give me a hand with the critical review if anyone is in need of a task. Cheers guys  Blackflagdog (discuss • contribs) 08:46, 9 March 2016 (UTC) Hey  thanks for doing this. I'm also planning on working on the Collective action dilemma discussed in one of the readings, if anyone has any ideas where it could fit into the structure? Would be a great help.   SophieNHayes (discuss • contribs) 13:41, 9 March 2016 (UTC) -- Yeah this is the page I said that I had made when we met up the other day. Will be uploading a first draft tonight for SOPA. How are you getting on and is there anything that needs looked at? Banddcole (discuss • contribs) 12:59, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Okay guys that's me uploaded my final draft of the piece on online piracy and SOPA. Any last minute ideas anyone has to help me relate this back to the key themes or anything interesting to add? Also if anyone else needs a last minute looks at their work then I'll be about until the deadline at 5pm in case. Good job guys :) Banddcole (discuss • contribs) 15:39, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey, think you've done a really good job especially concerning the structure, layout is great. I think you've covered everything I would personally have done, not sure if any of the other guys have anything to contribute. I've uploaded my final two drafts, if anyone has anything to add before deadline feel free... Unfortunately I won't be around till the deadline as I have work commitments so anything else I added would be late in. Thanks for all your help guys! SophieNHayes (discuss • contribs) 16:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

̴̴Blackflagdog (discuss • contribs) 08:53, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Spice Girls
&#8593; Back to top Hey guys, I think the structure so far is looking good! A lot of interesting subtopics which means we have loads of stuff we're able to cover! I was just thinking what yous thought about possibly meeting up in person during this week to discuss the project? I'm still finding it quite difficult to get used to the whole wiki thing haha and usually find it so much easier to go over stuff in person! Obviously depends on if you guys are available at all this week :), we could also schedule meetings throughout the project! Eilidhmcauley (discuss • contribs) 12:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I'm away for this week, but as soon as we come back I have no problem in meeting up, as it's actually a good idea. Also, I don't know if we are allowed but maybe other people on the project can come too? I mean, we are all working on this together and are assessed individually so as long they are people who are posting I think it would be beneficial. So, GConcilio94 you want to come if we meet? :) Everynameistaken15 (discuss • contribs) 14:03, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it would be a good idea, we'll be marked individually but we have to talk to each other in order to do a good job and avoid stepping on each other's toes, I'm up for this but I'm gonna be out of Stirling during the reading week. GConcilio94 (discuss • contribs) 14:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay! We'll try to organise something as soon as you get back. I can't imagine there being any problems with us meeting with other groups, but it might be a good idea to maybe meet up with just our own group a couple of times first. Would give us a chance to get to know each other and get a good idea of what we're all doing first, then adding other people into the mix! Eilidhmcauley (discuss • contribs) 18:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey, I'm okay with meeting any time you suggest after reading week (I'm not always in Stirling, that's why), but I think we can start already, can't we? Everyone just takes care of his/her part and then we can discuss about the topics?-SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 19:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * yes, we can start doing that and arrange a meeting for later Everynameistaken15 (discuss • contribs) 21:40, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

EDIT I just moved this part of the discussion down, as I think it belongs here. SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 20:18, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

@SchrumpflinH: :::@Everynameistaken15: :::@LucyClaire: Hi girls! Thought it'd maybe be a good idea to create a discussion section on the actual main discussion page instead of using Facebook chat. I know we discussed meeting up before the break and not everyone was available to do it, but I was thinking we should try to meet up soonish. We should atleast meet up next Tuesday when the computer labs aren't on, but hopefully will be able to before then aswell! Think it will help a lot if we get together and share our ideas etc. But obviously it's up to yous! Eilidhmcauley (discuss • contribs) 14:48, 1 March 2016 (UTC) @Eilidhmcauley: Hi, that sounds great. We can definitely meet up to discuss topics and presentation and Tuesday suits me well. LucyClaire (discuss • contribs) 14:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

{{@Eilidhmcauley: Hey I just moved it down to an own section so that we don't bother the other groups, is that fine for you? I think it's good to have an own section, nice. We can meet up before the seminar? Like half an hour before it starts? - SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 14:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey girls, just a quick question. I have used a newspaper article in one of my sections, I was wondering if you knew how to link it in or how I should reference it? Thanks! LucyClaire (discuss • contribs) 10:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * hi, i used lots of articles too. i usually take the author's name and article title+ date and then make a reference like this: < ref = "put a word from the sentence">[link] author's name,title,date <  / ref  >   i double spaced here so wiki doesn't make a reference but you should remove all double shifts and that's your reference Everynameistaken15 (discuss • contribs) 11:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

thank you for your help! And where you put [link] do I put in the actual link to the article for the reference? LucyClaire (discuss • contribs) 11:22, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * yep!Everynameistaken15 (discuss • contribs) 13:48, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey guys, sorry the meeting the other day kinda fell apart hahaha turns out the clock on my email address was wrong so the room was booked out for 1 o clock in the morning haha. Anyway, I think we pretty much all have a solid idea of what we're doing and you's have all pretty much uploaded all of your content anyway? I don't have too much left to do and I'll be done, was thinking we could maybe then quickly look over each others work and give each other tips when we're done. I'll hopefully be completely finished by tonight so we could either do it then or tomorrow just before it's due? Up to you guys! Eilidhmcauley (discuss • contribs) 14:21, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * hi ahahah i guess we've found out why! btw, the idea of checking each other's content is great, as we should check every entry in the book anyway. i still have a section to write cause i'm collaborating with another girl for that but hopefully by tonight i'll be finished. so i'll probably go over all the sections tomorrow morning, also because at the moment the uni wifi is making it impossible to load pages! Everynameistaken15 (discuss • contribs) 14:36, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

{{reply to|LucyClaire}} I know, so annoying though! Yeah that sounds good, I think the internet is finally back up (thank god) so we can get back on with it. Kinda struggling to write the intro to the privacy section, just not really sure what to write and keep it vague enough so everyone else can elaborate on it in the later topics! Will hopefully get a first draft done tonight though. Eilidhmcauley (discuss • contribs) 15:08, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, as you guys know, my content is already upload, but I am everywhere :D Sherlock is everywhere :D I will read through the book page again and focus on your topics first - I am already excited to see them! :) SchrumpflinH (discuss • contribs) 15:11, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

{{reply to|SchrumpflinH}} I mainly ended up just writing the Public Displays of Connection section, I've wrote a little bit in Nothing Created Nothing Destroyed and a teensy bit of the Privacy on Digital Media but I think I'm mainly going to leave those for other people to contribute to if they're a bit behind. Eilidhmcauley (discuss • contribs) 21:43, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

{{reply to|Eilidhmcauley}} {{reply to|SchrumpflinH}} {{reply to|Everynameistaken15}} that explains everything Eilidh! But, we still got a bit of work done which was good. I would be glad to read over your work but that will probably be tomorrow morning/afternoon. Still have to do my glossary and have a re-read of a section of mine. Thank you girls. LucyClaire (discuss • contribs) 21:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC) {{reply to|SchrumpflinH}} {{reply to|Everynameistaken15}} {{reply to|LucyClaire}} Hey, just finishing off my sections. I've put a few definitions in the glossary so I hope that helps out a bit! Still trying to sort out the privacy on digital media section/find someone to do it with me haha. Eilidhmcauley (discuss • contribs) 13:42, 11 March 2016 (UTC)