Talk:An Internet of Everything?/Technological and Cultural Determinism

Hello everyone! I thought I'd get the ball rolling with this. I've created a contributors list below so please add your name and your group if you're working on this. I've also added an 'Ideas' section so we can start to discuss our topic and allocate sections.

AmyBevs (discuss • contribs) 10:48, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Contributors
1) AmyBevs (discuss • contribs) - CERJA

2) WiKirsten (discuss • contribs) - GRKKOK?

3) TrishEl (discuss • contribs) - CERJA

4) Riinamaria (discuss • contribs) - CERJA

5) EmLouBrough (discuss • contribs) Team Jimenez

6) Jdwharris (discuss • contribs) - CERJA

7) CalSmith96 (discuss • contribs) - WBOT

8) Purneet kainth (discuss • contribs) - The Stir Girls

9) CaDowns (discuss • contribs) - CERJA

10) Ihatewasps (discuss • contribs) - The Stir Girls

11) Chuyanlol (discuss • contribs) - Team Jimenez

12) Hlat123 (discuss • contribs) - Team Jimenez

13) Georgiamattie (discuss • contribs) - The Stir Girls

14) Muir97 (discuss • contribs) - The Stir Girls

15) KZillwood02 - The Stir Girls

16) Danninotclare (discuss • contribs) 16:45, 1 March 2016 (UTC)- WBOT

17) Clarenotdanni (discuss • contribs) 16:56, 1 March 2016 (UTC) - WBOT

18) Emily boston (discuss • contribs) 02:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC) Team Jimenez

19) JacobTheOhioan (discuss • contribs) - WBOT

20) Kieranmcm95 (discuss • contribs) - GRKKOK?

21) Rossmurray26 (discuss • contribs) - GRKKOK?

22) GABRIEL9 (discuss • contribs) - GRKKOK?

23) Nuriaj95 (discuss • contribs) 19:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC) - Team Jimenez

Ideas
Hey everyone! Here we can discuss planning for the project. First of all we need to discuss what sections we are going to cover and who is going to write each one. Perhaps we should split it so that some people are working on technological determinism and others are working on cultural determinism?

AmyBevs (discuss • contribs) 10:54, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I like the idea of creating two branches for technological and cultural determinism, then creating more sub sections within that! Thanks for creating this discussion page!

WiKirsten (discuss • contribs) 11:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Great! I was thinking for a basic structure we could do something like this:

1) Introduction 2) Definition of Technological and Cultural Determinism 3) The theory behind each of these - reference to McLuhan, Williams, etc. 4) Then we split up technological and cultural determinism and work through them in a chronological order with reference to the theory discussed beforehand - so talking about the rise of the internet, the impact of social media, etc. 5) Then to finish we could discuss the future - the rise of technology. 6) Conclusion - we could decide which is a better theory - technological determinism or cultural determinism?

Any thoughts guys? Agree, disagree?

AmyBevs (discuss • contribs) 12:31, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I'm a little late to the party, none of my team mates had posted in here so I got a little confused over whether I was in the right place or not but I'm certain I was allocated this topic so the rest of my team just must not have posted yet :) That basic structure looks great to me! And I'm behind the idea of splitting the task in two for the two branches, it'll make it a lot easier.

I guess the best starting point for the project is to get the definitions for technological and cultural determinism down so that all of us each have an understanding of what exactly they are, and so that we all are using the same definition throughout the project? Thoughts? CalSmith96 (discuss • contribs) 20:06, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey Caleb - I've had a look at the groups list and you're in the right place.

Here are the definitions of technological determinism and cultural determinism according to Wikipedia:

"Technological determinism is a reductionist theory that presumes that a society's technology drives the development of its social structure and cultural values."

"Cultural determinism is the belief that the culture in which we are raised determines who we are at emotional and behavioral levels."

So in basic terms, I think that technological determinism is the idea that technology influences a society's culture, while cultural deteminism is the opposite - the idea that a society's culture influences its technology. Does everyone agree with these definitions?

AmyBevs (discuss • contribs) 16:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

This looks very good, thank you Amy for starting this!

I was thinking that maybe in addition to chapter four - or it could have its own chapter - we could also have a section that discusses the opposition these theories face/have faced during the period they've been relevant? The critical reception? It'd be good to bring in different points of view.

Riinamaria (discuss • contribs) 18:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Those basic definitions look fine to me! I think including the opposition the theories have faced is a good idea too, it'll add some balance and might make for some interesting reading.

Are we going to consider both theories in a general worldwide sense? One theory might be more relevant to a specific country/continent than compared to others so if this turns out to be the case we could maybe add a section/subsection for specific countries or continents if there's enough information to merit doing so. Thoughts?

CalSmith96 (discuss • contribs) 19:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I like the idea of putting in opposing theories - it would help to build up our argument. Also an interesting point about the geographic relevance of each theory - if we come across any specifics while doing our reading and research we should definitely put them in.

AmyBevs (discuss • contribs) 10:45, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Amybevs for creating this page, it is really helpful to see everyone's ideas altogether. Purneet kainth (discuss • contribs) 22:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey guys. Thank you for creating this discussion page, Amybevs. These are the people in 'The Stir Girls' group-KZillwood02, Purneet kainth, Muir97, Georgiamattie and me (ihatewasps). Ihatewasps (discuss • contribs) 12:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey guys, I just added some very basic headings and sections to the Book's page based on the sections Amy suggested! There's not much and most of it is just placeholders so feel free to change it all around if you want :) CalSmith96 (discuss • contribs) 13:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this page Amy! It has already been really nice to see everyone's ideas and suggestions. Georgiamattie (discuss • contribs) 13:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Would it be useful to have a section where we collect together all the final decisions? Who is in charge of what and so on? I feel like it would make the following of the construction of this wikibook way easier. --Riinamaria (discuss • contribs) 14:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi guys! Thanks for starting this off, Amy! Do you all think it'd be useful to set up a chart of the different categories and subcategories? To make it easier to work on the wikibook and make sure we don't end up with people writing the exact same thing? TrishEl (discuss • contribs) 14:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes TrishEl! You read my thoughts. I also just added the table of contents on this discussion page so it's easier to keep tabs. --Riinamaria (discuss • contribs) 14:37, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I will try to figure out how create a new section for it and update the contents table as well. TrishEl (discuss • contribs) 14:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for starting this page! Maybe we could have each group take a section to work on so there's not too many people working on the section. Then any leftover sections we could sort out together, for example the introduction and conclusion? Clarenotdanni (discuss • contribs) 14:43, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I just set up a basic table to make it clearer who is working on what. It's pretty basic so far but if anyone can think of things that should be added on please edit it. TrishEl (discuss • contribs) 14:48, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey everyone - sorry I'm kind of late to the party! Thanks for starting to sort this out though. One idea that I have is to have a section on the history of cultural determinism and the history of technological determinism (theorists, examples of its previous applications throughout history etc.) I don't know if someone was planning to have this kind of information under the in-depth sections or in the definition sections but I feel like there'll be so much information for it that it might be worth having a separate section for it. What does everyone think? Jdwharris (discuss • contribs) 14:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

The ideas floating about here are great and the table of contents is really useful. As it is quite hard diving up what group is doing what particular section, my group ( the stir girls; Ihatewasps, KZillwood02, Muir97, Georgiamattie and myself, Purneetkainth have come up with a basic structure that can fit right into the contents. Would this be okay to do? Purneet kainth (discuss • contribs) 16:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Guys, this page is filling up now! Like PurneetKainth wrote our group has came up with a basic structure that we were thinking about following but you can let us know if you think that it is okay! We thought to begin with in the introduction we could introduce the ideas of technological and cultural determinism and give a bit of background behind them. We were then thinking of writing definitions for both in a short paragraph, before writing about the theories. Our group came up with 5 theorist for each topic that helped create the idea and we decided to take one each and just write a few sentences about them. We then thought that our next paragraphs would be why technological and cultural determinism would be significant in our society. We were thinking of each coming up with an example about why they were important. Before our conclusion our last paragraph we were thinking about writing about how these two topics will impact society in the future, then conclude. What does everyone think of this idea? KZillwood02 (discuss • contribs) 16:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey a bit confused, do you mean a section or the thing? What five theorist are they so other groups can chip in as well. --Also, I think splitting up into sections is a better and clearer way to do things. Maybe do it like first come first served like in class.What would the basic structure be Danninotclare (discuss • contribs) 16:48, 1 March 2016

Hey Caleb you are in our group now named WBOT, I was thinking we could choose a section to do together and then break that down into individual sections to do ourselves. Has anyone out of Danninotclare JacobtheOhion and CalSmith96 got any idea which subject they want to do? Clarenotdanni (discuss • contribs) 17:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey guys. We've got lots of good ideas being suggested. I think what we really need to do now is get a solid structure finalised so we can allocate a group to each section and then decide what is being covered in each. Looking at the Wiki Groups list there are five groups covering this chapter, so what would be ideal is five sections - each one being covered by a different group. Then the different topics within each section can be allocated within the individual groups. The table below shows four sections (plus an introduction and conclusion), but I also like the Stir Girls' idea for a structure. Perhaps we can combine these two structures? Maybe something like:

Introduction

Definition

History

Main Concepts

Opposition

Future

Conclusion

I don't think we would need a separate section for theory because I would think it would be touched upon in all of the sections. What do you guys think?

AmyBevs (discuss • contribs) 19:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

AmyBevs I love the new contents suggestion! this is a great combination of all the idea floating around the page. I guess once everyone has picked their section, then we can branch off onto what we think is relevant and then tidy it up as we go along as we only have just over a week left!! great ideas from everyone coming in, well done team! Purneet kainth (discuss • contribs) 22:22, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay, so if everyone's happy with the structure (and please say if you aren't) then what we need to do now is each team needs to pick which section they are covering. If each team could write their ideas for their section in the table then this will let everyone else know what they are doing, and hopefully avoid any unnecessary overlap.

AmyBevs (discuss • contribs) 12:07, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm happy with that basic structure, and I have no preference over which section to do in my team. If any of my other team members have an idea I'll be happy to go along with whatever! If I had to choose one I'd maybe want to tackle the opposition aspect but if anyone else in the team would prefer something else then I'm happy to go along with it :)

CalSmith96 (discuss • contribs) 13:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

AmyBevs that sounds good! And if anyone comes up with anything we haven't covered yet on the structure that would be a great addition - I'm pretty sure we'd be able to squeeze it in. Good work guys. Riinamaria (discuss • contribs) 14:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Really great job sorting out those categories! Like CalSmith96 I have no preference, but I'll chat to my team and we'll let you know what we pick! --WiKirsten (discuss • contribs) 17:29, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey our group WBOT would like to do opposition if that is ok for everyone.--Danninotclare (discuss • contribs) 23:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Would it be okay if all the groups made their own little section - to keep log of the meetings and the overall structure of their topic? Riinamaria (discuss • contribs) 19:11, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

That's a good idea Riina - this would allow each of the groups to keep track of their own ideas, but still let the other groups see what they are going. I'm going create a section for each group to discuss their topic.

AmyBevs (discuss • contribs) 20:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello everyone! Since no one else in my group (Team Jimenez) seems to have commented so far, I'm just going to go ahead and put us down for the section titled 'The Future', if that's all right with everyone else. --EmLouBrough (discuss • contribs) 22:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey Guys! Thank you to everyone who has started this discussion page! There's a lot going on already! I'm also part of Team Jimenez, sorry for taking so long to add to this!! Should we create separate headings for each group to have their discussions as well as this large group discussion? I think it would create some more organization once we start dividing work amoungst the groups :) Emily boston (discuss • contribs) 02:41, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Emily boston If you look at the bottom of the page you'll see there's an area for topic discussion that is divided up for each of the subjects/groups. I think we can hold our group discussion in there! EmLouBrough (discuss • contribs) 13:04, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

How is everybody getting on? --WiKirsten (discuss • contribs) 14:55, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Things are going fairly well on my end, I've struggled a little with figuring out some coding and Wiki markup but otherwise I'm getting on fine! I don't know about my other team mates but I reckon I could get the bulk of my work done by tonight CalSmith96 (discuss • contribs) 14:57, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi everyone, myself and my group are feeling quite confused as someone who is not in our group has just posted in the section that we have agreed to take on. We have put in the table that we would take on the history topic. I'm not sure if their group hasn't seen the whole table that we thought everyone had agreed on but it's stressing us out a little as now we are unsure of what is supposed to be going on and whether that structure is still what everyone else is working around?Muir97 (discuss • contribs) 18:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm also part of Muir97 group and would like to know what structure we are using cause it all seems to be getting mixed up at the moment. KZillwood02 (discuss • contribs) 18:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

It's also quite confusing that we have a subsection about the history, that is the sole aspect we have agreed to write about in this chapter, but now there is a sub-subsection in another group's topic called "history and origin". I think things are likely to look messy if the same topic is repeated. Muir97 (discuss • contribs) 18:39, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey guys, as far as I'm aware we were all meant to be sticking to the subjects we signed up for on the table? I don't know whose group the person in question is a member of but they don't seem to have posted before now so I'm really not too sure what's going on since as far as I'm aware there were no changes to who was covering each part of the book. As for the issue with someone else's group having a history sub-section you'll need to wait for a member of that group to respond but it's possible that there might not be too much of an overlap depending on how much they're planning to write. They might also be willing to take that part out of their section though if it means repeating a lot of the same information, you'd need to chase it up with them CalSmith96 (discuss • contribs) 19:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Muir97, just to let you know regarding the addition of the history and origin section which our group added to our definition topic, we added that section to talk about the history in terms of how it's been defined over the years and how that has led to a change in it's definition. We felt quite limited with having 4 people discussing the definitions so had to add some sub sections to bulk out our work but looking over it again I can see how it can be misleading. We will try to not overlap information and sorry for any inconvenience caused. Kieranmcm95 (discuss • contribs) 21:53, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

CalSmith96 Kieranmcm95 hey guys! thanks for replying to my groups post, we were all a little bit confused. Kieranmcm95 I can see where you are coming from now and I understand why you guys chose to do it. I've read what you guys have wrote and what we have written and it doesn't seem to overlap too much. We have a list of the theorists we're planning to cover now also under our section so you guys can see what we were planning to do and who we were planning to write about. I think we decided we were going try to write 3-5 lines on each of the theorists. Hope this is okay with you guys. KZillwood02 (discuss • contribs) 22:51, 8 March 2016 (UTC) Also CalSmith96 the person who posted on our section is in a different group but doing the section on the future I think but they had came across some history of the two so decided to post it on our section. Its all been clarified now :) KZillwood02 (discuss • contribs) 22:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I hope you are getting on well with this project! I wanted to ask you all if you think adding a glossary to the end would be a good idea? Perhaps we can all contribute any terms to this collectively? Purneet kainth (discuss • contribs) 23:40, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey! Does anyone know how to add a picture to the wiki book? KZillwood02 (discuss • contribs) 09:41, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Kieranmcm95 thanks for clarifying that for us, I'm sure it'll be easy enough for us to keep an eye out for any overlaps on both ends and sort anything out! Sorry if I came across a little blunt or anything in the previous comments, we were all just panicking a little haha! CalSmith96 thanks for your help! Muir97 (discuss • contribs) 13:43, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah we will keep an eye on it and that's fine no worries, I understand your group would have been stressed about it Kieranmcm95 (discuss • contribs) 18:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about the slight overlap Stir Girls, as Kieranmcm95 said we were trying to think of more subsections which is why some history came about! I've included a link back to your chapter as I understand we have mentioned a few theorists that your group has already explained thoroughly. --WiKirsten (discuss • contribs) 17:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi everyone, hope you are all getting on well with the project. As an extra section to the book, I have added a GLOSSARY. I think this will be really useful and will help any complex terms to be understood in a helpful manner. Just add to this if you think you have any. Purneet kainth (discuss • contribs) 21:11, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey all, I am trying to add links into my section, like the small numbers, but it will then not let me save the changes, do you know how I can go about tackling this? thank you in advance!! Purneet kainth (discuss • contribs) 21:50, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Purneet kainth Do you mean reference style little numbers? I used the little picture of a book with a red bit on it, that's on the same toolbar as the bold/italic/underline options. Hope that helps! --WiKirsten (discuss • contribs) 22:38, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Purneet kainth thank you for setting up the glossary section. I have swapped the headings "Glossary" and "references" round on the Wikibook's page because all our references were under the Glossary section. :) Hope this is okay KZillwood02 (discuss • contribs) 23:23, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

WiKirsten thank you for getting back to me so soon. Yes I think that could be the problem. I will have a look into that, many thanks :) KZillwood02 it is no problem at all, however I have just realized there is already a glossary on the cover of the book as a whole, and not just for cultural and technological determinism. Purneet kainth (discuss • contribs) 07:38, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi guys! I just uploaded my information on Lynn White Jr. (for technological determinism) and Patrick Buchanan (for cultural determinism). The page is looking awesome! Is there anything else we are missing or need to do? Georgiamattie (discuss • contribs) 14:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

WELL DONE TEAM CULTURAL AND TECHNOLOGICAL DETERMINISM!! :D Purneet kainth (discuss • contribs) 20:28, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikibooks Tips
Hi guys - I thought I would add a section where we can share hints and tips on how to actually use Wikibooks. So here we can discuss formatting, links, layout, etc so we can make our project look as good as possible! We can also put things we've learned from The Teahouse and The Reading Room here.

AmyBevs (discuss • contribs) 12:37, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I am hoping you are more knowledgeable about wikibooks than me! In the contents, we have different chapters, but then also little sub chapters stemming off too. How do we create a little chapter in the actual book? Does 'add topic' only create a whole new section? many thanks. Purneet kainth (discuss • contribs) 16:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Subsections are quite easy to add! Just click on the help button on top of the box when you're writing your chapter (near the Advanced and Special characters buttons) and click on Headings and it tells you different ways to title your chapter. Riinamaria (discuss • contribs) 16:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey Guys! I just spent awhile figuring out how to use pictures from WIki Commons (free to use) on a wikibook page. A great wiki page that helped me can be found here. The general form is  Hlat123 (discuss • contribs) 16:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much Riinamaria! and that is really great thing to share with us all Hlat123, it will definitely help with the shape and aesthetics of our book! Purneet kainth (discuss • contribs) 21:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Oooooo using pictures might be handy, thank you for looking into it and sharing! And remember if you see a format (e.g. tables or headings) in another wikibook that you want to use but dont know how simply hit edit on that section and you'll be able to see the coding used, so long as you don't save the page you shouldn't mess any of the page up! CalSmith96 (discuss • contribs) 13:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Y'know, I never even considered checking the code on 'edit'! Great call there Calsmith96! I suppose that'll take a lot of the stress out of figuring out the formatting.I'm going to have a look at more formatting tips in general. If I find anything worthwhile, I'll post it back here! CaDowns (discuss • contribs) 21:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey guys, so I was having a wee nosy at the discussion pages for some other groups and a couple of them (Access to Knowledge and Data in Everyday Life and Open Source and Proprietary Technologies) have an information notice at the top of the page explaining the discussion page to those who are new so they understand where they should be contributing etc. Does anyone know how to go about doing this? Thanks! -Ihatewasps (discuss • contribs) 18:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I went into edit mode on one of their pages and copied the code, I'll attempt to put in a notice box on our page in a sec! It'll mostly just have placeholder info to make sure the code worked fine so if it's successful anyone is free to change or add to it as they please CalSmith96 (discuss • contribs) 19:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC) edit: it worked! I put very basic info on the notice but change or add as much or as little as you guys see fit :) CalSmith96 (discuss • contribs) 19:25, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that CalSmith96, it looks great! It'll make the page a bit easier to navigate for those who are new. Ihatewasps (discuss • contribs) 14:19, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey guys! I might be really behind the times and you might already know this but i found this out yesterday in one of my other modules so thought I would share it all with you. We all know that we have to be really careful when we are using a photo or picture on our wikibook pages so I learned a way that made it easier to identify the copyright terms and conditions for using pre-existing pictures. When you go onto to google, type what you picture you want into it, then go onto google images. Once you get to google images you will see loads of pictures which will appear matching to the key word you have typed in. If you go along to the tab underneath the search bar you will see something called ""search tools", click on it then you will see a tab which says "usage rights". There are five options here 1) Not filtered by license, 2) labeled for reuse with modification, 3) labelled for reuse, 4) labelled for non commercial reuse with modification then lastly 5) labeled for non commercial reuse. By clicking the terms and condition that fits best what you are looking for, it will eliminate the pictures that copyright don't allow us to use. Therefore we can put pictures into our wikibooks and not have to worry about the copy right terms and conditions! I hope this helps your search when selecting images KZillwood02 (discuss • contribs) 16:21, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing KZillwood02, that might be really helpful! Another thing to keep in mind is that you can find some pictures on Wikimedia Commons and, as far as I'm aware, you're allowed to freely use all images on it on other Wiki-related sites without permission :) Of course the images on there are limited and you might struggle to find relevant ones to our project on there in which case the method mentioned above is probably the best way to go about getting ones! CalSmith96 (discuss • contribs) 19:27, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks CalSmith96 I had forgotten about Wikimedia commons. Its really useful having this section so we can help each other out :) KZillwood02 (discuss • contribs) 19:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Does anyone know why sometimes our comments on the wikibook come up in boxes? KZillwood02 (discuss • contribs) 22:35, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@KZillwood02, sometimes if you accidentally double space, then a grey box comes up. Do you mean one like this? If so, then just back space a couple times before the section that has a box around it, and it should sort itself out. Ihatewasps (discuss • contribs) 12:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Ihatewasps Okay ill try that thanks! KZillwood02 (discuss • contribs) 12:28, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Introduction (1.)
Hi everyone! How are we planning on dividing the workload for the introduction since everyone is involved? Rossmurray26 (discuss • contribs) 14:36, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Should we divide it up the same way we did with the main sections, so each group takes a small piece? That way its probably easier to organise? Clarenotdanni (discuss • contribs) 17:03, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Clarenotdanni, I think that's probably the best idea. If each group contributes to the introduction by providing a little opening of our sub-section, i.e. a small paragraph, that's probably the best way since everyone gets their say. Rossmurray26 (discuss • contribs) 22:19, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Rossmurray26, that sounds like a good plan and means we don't have to worry about splitting up sections again. We can then discuss within our groups, so each group member has a chance to contribute to the introduction. Kieranmcm95 (discuss • contribs) 22:34, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the introduction will take much time, so we can just discuss here when we are finished and summarise our sections in the introduction! WiKirsten (discuss • contribs)- WiKirsten

Yeah, that sounds like a good idea WiKirsten! Rossmurray26 (discuss • contribs) 12:35, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi everyone, how are we planning to write the introduction and conclusion? Georgiamattie, Muir97, Ihatewasps and Purneetkainth and myself are doing the section on history and at the beginning of each of our sections- technological and cultural determinism we have our own introduction to introduce the key ideas and theorists, should we just bring these together and sum each section up in two or three sentences? KZillwood02 (discuss • contribs) 11:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I think that sounds fine KZillwood02 also I reckon two to three sentences should be what each group tries to stick to so that it doesn't seem unnecessarily long. Clarenotdanni (discuss • contribs) 21:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Most of the other groups have already done their introduction so if anyone was wanting ideas on how long to aim to make our own introduction then I'd recommend looking at the length of the other groups! Likewise for our wikibook as a whole; I know a few people have still to write their part but looking at other chapters as a guideline might be a help when we're touching things up. But yeah, I agree with getting each group to summarise their own subsection since it will help flesh out both the intro and conclusion and then at the end we can try to get it all to flow and connect together nicely CalSmith96 (discuss • contribs) 12:50, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

CalSmith96 Should each group just write a couple sentences in the introduction, and we can tidy it up as the day goes on tomorrow? GROKK are close to being finished our definition section so we could have our bit done by tonight I think. Or if anyone is a particular wordsmith, feel free to write a catchy opening sentence! --WiKirsten (discuss • contribs) 17:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

WiKirsten I think that might work out best! If anyone else has any better ideas (or specific ideas for the intro) then feel free to share! CalSmith96 (discuss • contribs) 21:16, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey Guys, I just uploaded the introduction part for the history section onto the main page KZillwood02 (discuss • contribs) 22:55, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I wrote the introduction for my group (Opposition), as well as the conclusion! I also moved the first couple of introduction sentenced to be in the same paragraph to make it flow a little better instead of looking like bullet points but if you guys think it would look better the way it was before then feel free to change it back! Once all the intros and conclusions are done we might need to reword some things a little so that it flows a little better but it might not be totally necessary we'll need to wait and see how it reads when we're done CalSmith96 (discuss • contribs) 11:36, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Definition (2.)
Hi WiKirsten, really like your ideas for the sub-sections of the Definition section of the Technological and Cultural Determinism topic. The only problem is, some of these sub-sections require more work than others since some need a more in-depth analysis. How should we split up this workload? What do you think Kieranmcm95 and GABRIEL9? Rossmurray26 (discuss • contribs) 14:34, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Rossmurray26 thanks for your contribution to the discussion and thanks to WiKirsten for putting forward an idea for a layout. I agree with the difficulty in splitting up the sections and feel we could have two people working on Cultural Determinism and the other two working on Technological Determinism? We could then split the general sections and in depth sections evenly between the two people. I would also suggest meeting in the library to discuss our ideas face to face? Kieranmcm95 (discuss • contribs) 14:45, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree Kieranmcm95, I think meeting in the library would be beneficial. Since we're all in the seminar together, do we all have free time afterwards to go to the library and chat about what how we're planning on dividing up the sub-sections? I agree with Kieranmcm95's idea of splitting up in two groups - one doing Technological Determinism and one doing Cultural and then splitting the workload up from there, so one person isn't just doing a general definition and someone does an in-depth, but if both people do a part each. That sound reasonable or do you think there is a better and more efficient way of going about it? Rossmurray26 (discuss • contribs) 15:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Rossmurray26, just to say I'm available after the seminar tomorrow to discuss the points mentioned. We could also consider if there are any other sub-sections that could be added to bulk out our work? Kieranmcm95 (discuss • contribs) 15:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi guys good points raised! I see what you mean about the topics being weighted unequally, I suggest Rossmurray26 Kieranmcm95and you tackle one, then me and GABRIEL9 take the other. Any preference which one you would like? Also I don't think the seminar is on tomorrow! --WiKirsten (discuss • contribs) 21:21, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi WiKirsten, sounds good to me. You okay with that Kieranmcm95? I really don't mind either way. Why don't we do technological and you guys do cultural, and distribute the workload equally in pairs? So we don't have a seminar or a lab tomorrow?! Rossmurray26 (discuss • contribs) 20:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay great! Nope, just the lecture! --WiKirsten (discuss • contribs) 21:21, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi guys! So we will go ahead with that idea of splitting the topics up and yeah I’m okay with that Rossmurray26. I don’t mind what topic we do, so I’m fine with technological determinism. Is there any other time tomorrow when people are available to meet and discuss other ideas? Kieranmcm95 (discuss • contribs) 22:26, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good Kieranmcm95. Since we don't have a seminar tomorrow, should we meet at 3pm in the library WiKirsten? Rossmurray26 (discuss • contribs) 22:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I will be free at 3pm, so am happy to meet then Kieranmcm95 (discuss • contribs) 00:39, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi guys, GABRIEL9 has just found a great book: New Media, A Critical Introduction. It has plenty of information on both technological and cultural determinism. WiKirsten (discuss • contribs) 14:13, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi WiKirsten, that sounds great. Kieranmcm95 and I have also found a book. It's called Does Technology Drive History? So that'll be great for technological determinism. I think there'll be less information on cultural determinism in this book, so we need more resources for cultural. Rossmurray26 (discuss • contribs) 11:48, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

We have also found some useful ebooks on the library catalogue, looks as if they will have some information on cultural determinism Kieranmcm95 (discuss • contribs) 11:53, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi guys, how about this for a setup? Cultural Determinism

Brief history

Cultural determinism in history

Origin Cultural determinism in the new media age

Raymond Williams GABRIEL9 (discuss • contribs) 12:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

We spoke about referencing earlier, took me a while to find but the symbol of the book with a red tick puts a reference in! --WiKirsten (discuss • contribs) 14:56, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey GABRIEL9, your section is looking really good, but just a wee question- you guys seem to have went into quite a lot of depth about the history of technological and cultural determinism but i thought the next section in our wiki book was going to focus on that part cause my group were going to focus on the history part? KZillwood02 (discuss • contribs) 16:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi GABRIEL9, just letting you know that we sorted out the confusion about the sections in the 'ideas' part of this discussion page and that we are following the same structure, we have to watch we don't go off topic by remembering to talk about points in terms of how tech and cultural determinism has been defined. Also WiKirsten, thanks for including the point about adding references. Kieranmcm95 (discuss • contribs) 18:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I found a formulation of cultural determinism which is a bit different, it is by Oswald Spengler, who saw western civilization as a biological superorganism destined to die, the deterministic part comes from the fact that culture and civilization are subject to inevitable decline, and the culture wars that build what we know perceive as cultural determinism are tied to the development and decline of culture. So, cultural determinism is a mechanical process, impossible to modify, and historic perspective dominates everything, should I add it to the page? GABRIEL9 (discuss • contribs) 23:36, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

That sounds interesting, I don't see why not and if you can relate it to our section then that should be fine Kieranmcm95 (discuss • contribs) 23:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, Gabriele that sounds great! Gives it an original spin

I've out a couple pictures in our section, if you think they look out of place, please delete! I couldn't really work out the code to make them any bigger! --WiKirsten (discuss • contribs) 21:23, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks WiKirsten, the pictures look great and in terms of making them bigger I'm not sure, did you have a look online or in the wikibooks tips section on here to see if anyone else has mentioned it? Kieranmcm95 (discuss • contribs) 23:55, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

That's great WiKirsten, the pictures look brilliant. Do you think we should add more or would it make it look bad? Rossmurray26 (discuss • contribs) 16:33, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

GABRIEL9,WiKirsten, just to let you know about the part of your section that has been put in the box. Someone has put the way to sort this problem in the wikibook help section in this discussion, incase any of you were wondering how to fix it? Kieranmcm95 (discuss • contribs) 01:31, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

can you give the link to the help section? GABRIEL9 (discuss • contribs) 10:06, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

GABRIEL9, It is in this discussion page just above the table detailing groups and their sections, it's the section called 'wikibook tips' Kieranmcm95 (discuss • contribs) 11:49, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

That's our section completed guys WiKirsten, Kieranmcm95 and GABRIEL9. I think it looks great. Really like the pictures and it all links nicely. Rossmurray26 (discuss • contribs) 16:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I agree both parts looks really good and we have all managed to relate it well to our section. Kieranmcm95 (discuss • contribs) 16:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

The Stir Girls: Discussion
Hey guys (KZillwood02, Purneet kainth, Georgiamattie, Muir97). I was just wondering if everyone could note down the names of the theorists they decided to focus on for both technological determinism and cultural determinism here in this little area so we can make a start at the sub headings for our section? -Ihatewasps (discuss • contribs) 16:35, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I've also just added our history section to the actual wikibook part and the sub sections Technological Determinism and Cultural Determinism. -Ihatewasps (discuss • contribs) 17:31, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey guys- Purneet kainth, Georgiamattie, Muir97, User:Ihatewasps just wondering have any of you done any research on Thorstein Veblen? KZillwood02 (discuss • contribs) 11:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey KZillwood02, I have not yet done any research on Thorstein Veblen, the theorists I have been looking at were Harold Innis for Technological Determinism and Fredrich Schlegal for cultural determinism. Ihatewasps (discuss • contribs) 11:15, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey! Purneet kainth, Georgiamattie, Muir97, User:Ihatewasps, I have written a wee introduction to kind of introduce the history section for technological determinism. What I've written is

"Corresponding with the adaption of science, technology has rapidly evolved over a period of time. Technological determinists would argue that this evolution of technology has had a direct impact on modern culture.

The term “technology” used to be related to writing and printing, however now it is now more linked to computers and television.

Technological determinists believe that this evolution of technology has shaped societies values and norms, which has been passed down through generations.

Therefore as technology has advanced, it has had a direct impact on society.

Thorstein Vablen (1857-1929), an American sociologist and economist was the first theorist to evolve technological determinism, however his views led to other theorists developing this idea."

What do you guys think of this? Was thinking this may help us to lead onto the theorists we were going to briefly discuss in this section? What does everyone think? KZillwood02 (discuss • contribs) 12:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, was thinking we could maybe set up a table so that we can all remember which theorists we were writing about? Theorists also come up in a different section so just a short paragraph on each about their beliefs on technological and cultural determinism? KZillwood02 (discuss • contribs) 12:21, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

KZillwood02, I like the idea of a table so it's more organised and so there is no overlap of people researching different theorists. Ihatewasps (discuss • contribs) 13:44, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, does anyone know how many words/characters we are expected to contribute to the actual wikibook as an individual? Ihatewasps (discuss • contribs) 13:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Ihatewasps Not sure how many words we're supposed to contribute each to the wikibook but if we each write 3-4 sentences on each of our theorists then all contribute a bit into the introduction and conclusion that should be okay. KZillwood02 (discuss • contribs) 11:30, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

A Basic structure for this section i was thinking... 1) Historical Introduction for technological determinism 2) we write 3 or 4 sentences each on the theorist that we decided for the history of technological determinism 3) A historical Introduction for cultural determinism and 4) again write 3 or 4 sentences on the theorists we decided to write on for the history of cultural determinism. Does this sound okay? Ihatewasps has already put a section on the main page for us so the first two would go into technological determinism and the second two would go in cultural determinism. I have written a paragraph for section 1 and I think Ihatewasps is going to write a paragraph for section 3. Does this would okay for everyone? KZillwood02 (discuss • contribs) 13:53, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

KZillwood02, yeah that sounds like a good plan! Does anyone know why our History section has been put to the start of the Wikibook now, in front of "definitions" instead of after? Ihatewasps (discuss • contribs) 14:26, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey guys,KZillwood02, Purneet kainth, Georgiamattie, Muir97. I've just added a little introduction to our cultural determinism section in history, this is just a draft so we have something to work with on the page. Anyone in the Stir Girls, feel free to tweak it as you desire. Thanks! Ihatewasps (discuss • contribs) 18:05, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Ihatewasps. What you've written sounds really good and is a good introduction to lead onto the other theorists. KZillwood02 (discuss • contribs) 18:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

hi Nuriaj95 just wondering which group are you in? Saw you have written a bit on our section in the history part? KZillwood02 (discuss • contribs) 18:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

hi KZillwood02 yes I know I am not in your group! jaja I am Team Jimenez, but I found that about history, and eventually I thought it may help you if you want! You can do whatever with that :) thanks Nuriaj95 (discuss • contribs) 20:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Nuriaj95 Thank you that was really good of you. Sorry we were all just confused we thought we had another member in our group that we didn't know about! haha thank again :) also what you have written is really helpful :) KZillwood02 (discuss • contribs) 20:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for nothing!:) KZillwood02 Nuriaj95 (discuss • contribs) 20:48, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Nuriaj95 I've kept your stuff in it cause it was good and gave our section some good background but I've kind of just shuffled it about a little bit under our headings. Thanks again :) KZillwood02 (discuss • contribs) 20:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

KZillwood02,Georgiamattie, Muir97) and Ihatewasps all of the suggestions that are going up here are excellent, and the entries in the book are also great. My theorists are Sigfried Giedon and Johan Goethe. I have done my research for them so I will try and neatly it in our section :) also great idea of layout and the table is also very handy. What I wanted to quickly remind you of is the glossary, so just keep in mind any unfamiliar concepts and that way we can collectively build up a glossary. good luck everyone Purneet kainth (discuss • contribs) 21:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Also KZillwood02,Georgiamattie, Muir97) and Ihatewasps, how do you go about putting a number beside a figure or word, to then add it in the links below, as some of you have done on the book? This is really useful to use :) Purneet kainth (discuss • contribs) 21:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Purneet kainth do we put our glossary at the end of the Wikibooks? Sorry if that seems a silly question! KZillwood02 (discuss • contribs) 21:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Georgiamattie, Muir97), Ihatewasps and Purneet kainth Also for each of our theorists do you guys fancy putting a picture of each of them up beside their wee paragraph? I've put a wee bit of information up under the "Wikibooks" section on this page about the easiest way, in my opinion, to obtain pictures without ignoring the copyright terms and conditions :) KZillwood02 (discuss • contribs) 21:37, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

KZillwood02 I think at the very end of the book would be really helpful, however I can out it on the discussion to see what everyone else thinks. Also yes, pictures are a great idea, it will help with the layout of our chapter and also allow us to learn more :) Purneet kainth (discuss • contribs) 23:37, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Love the idea of photos for each theorist, KZillwood02! Was just wondering whether the glossary is going to be one individual to our section or if it is a collaborative glossary including terms that the other groups have also used, Purneet kainth? Also, I'm just trying to find the Wikipedia pages for all our theorists to include into my introduction to the history of cultural determinism, so far I have Robert Barro, Friedrich Schlegel, Johann Gottlieb Fichte and Johann Wolfgang Goethe. If you guys could just check to make certain these are the correct Wikipedia pages for your theorist that would be fab! Thank you Ihatewasps (discuss • contribs) 10:31, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Ihatewasps That's a really good idea to find the wikipedia pages for each theorist in our introduction! I'll do the same and add them too the technological determinism introduction. Also if any of you know how to insert a picture into the wikibook can you let me know. Thanks guys KZillwood02 (discuss • contribs) 11:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Also Purneet kainth, to add references with the little numbers which automatically are put at the end of the wikibook you would type: For example, to reference the Wikipedia homepage, you would put . (in the text it would look like this ) Hope this made sense and helped! Ihatewasps (discuss • contribs) 11:01, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Purneet kainth, Ihatewasps, Georgiamattie, Muir97, has anyone wrote a bit about Karl Marx? KZillwood02 (discuss • contribs) 11:32, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Is anyone else getting a little confused in regards to our discussion comments. When I get a notification that I've been tagged in something, I click on it to see what has been said but I'm getting slightly lost in this sea of comments. Is there a way for us to tidy it up and make it a bit easier to follow? (Also, not sure how to insert pictures into the wikibook yet, have yet to try, but if you find out, please let us know.) Ihatewasps (discuss • contribs) 11:38, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi everyone, well just yet I haven't heard back from the big discussion including all the groups, so I am not wanting to suggest anything without other groups also having a say. Ihatewasps adding the link to our theorists in the introduction is a really good idea. however when I tried clicking the link, they were not loading. It could just be my laptop/eduroam, so I will also try it again later. If the problem still persists I will try and edit it :)  Also thank you very much for letting me know how to add the links in, very helpful. Yes KZillwood02, I have information on Karl Marx, however I am not too sure how to fit it in, do you have any suggestions? Purneet kainth (discuss • contribs) 13:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

KZillwood02, I came across a page of student from our class who explained how to add pictures, so I will try and find that again and send the instructions to this discussion. Purneet kainth (discuss • contribs) 13:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Purneet kainth that would be great! If you maybe post it on the new wee discussion bit I've set up underneath and label it then hopefully we can all start to follow this discussion a little bit better because I think we're all started to get a bit confused with whose talking to who where! haha KZillwood02 (discuss • contribs) 14:13, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey KZillwood02 I haven't got around to Karl Marx yet! Also Ihatewasps I'm having the same problem where clicking on the notification takes me to the top of the subsection I've been mentioned in and then I have to scroll through them all to find which one I got the notification for. I'm not too sure there's much we can do about that, unless the comments started getting numbered or something so we could keep track of them better. I feel like there might have been something about adding photos in the wikibook tips section but I'm sure I'd looked at it and immediately panicked because it looked complicated haha. Maybe this could be an opportunity to use the tearoom facility - not sure if that's what it's called on wikibooks but I'm sure you'll know what I mean! Muir97 (discuss • contribs) 13:53, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Muir97 I think its called "The reading Room" for Wikibooks? :) someone correct me if I am wrong haha KZillwood02 (discuss • contribs) 14:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Purneet kainth I have added a section into the technological determinism section for Karl Marx and just wrote just now some notes on him. I have already uploaded it onto the main wikibook page so check it out and feel free to add in your own information or edit it if it does not make much sense :) let me know what you think? KZillwood02 (discuss • contribs) 14:01, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

KZillwood02 I'm more inclined to trust your judgement than my own hahaha, I'm sure you're right! Muir97 (discuss • contribs) 14:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

New Conversation
1) Right guys... I don't know about you but I'm getting really confused with whose asking what where on our page! haha so i set up this wee section that i thought we could start talking on and we could number our comments. Don't know if it will work or not but we could give it a go! haha Georgiamattie, Purneet kainth, Muir97 and Ihatewasps KZillwood02 (discuss • contribs) 14:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

2) I've written in the section on the main page now for Marx and McLuhan. If you guys read anything that doesn't make sense or shouldn't be in that part let me know and I'll edit/change it :) KZillwood02 (discuss • contribs) 15:28, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

3) KZillwood02 As long as we remember the last number we saw haha, hopefully it'll go a little better! I've read through what we've got so far and I think it's sounding really good! Muir97 (discuss • contribs) 17:39, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

4) For putting pictures up, I found a comment in the tips section saying that the code is  but in writing this I have also spotted a way to do it from this editing box - if you click on "advance" there's a bit that says "insert" and then it's got a wee picture of photographs, but I'm not quite sure what the end product looks like. I might have a little try at some point and see what happens. Muir97 (discuss • contribs) 17:57, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

5) KZillwood02, Georgiamattie, Purneet kainth, Ihatewasps Hi guys, I've just clicked on the first link in our section for Cultural Determinism and found that it doesn't actually link to anywhere - it comes up with a wiki page saying there is no article with that title or something. Was this something one of you wrote so you know what you were wanting to link, or was this our helpful guest's work? Muir97 (discuss • contribs) 18:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

6) Muir97, I believe this was our helpful guest's work because I've just tried all the links I entered and they all seem to be working fine. I've also just added my little bit on Harold Innis, if you guys could quickly check it over and proof read it to make sure it makes sense that would be great. Ihatewasps (discuss • contribs) 21:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

7) Ihatewasps I thought that might be the case. Your bit on Innis looks great to me! Muir97 (discuss • contribs) 22:48, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

8) I've realised the link wasn't working because he had capitalised determinism when the wikipedia page doesn't - I've changed it and the link is working now. Muir97 (discuss • contribs) 22:50, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

9) Hey everyone! Finally managed to get back on wiki after it not loading this afternoon! Just quickly put up my last section on Friedrich Schlegel and thought I'd slot in a picture for each of my theorists in case it crashes again. Also, thanks Muir97 for sorting out the link! Ihatewasps (discuss • contribs) 15:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

10) That looks really good with the pictures Ihatewasps! No bother:) Muir97 (discuss • contribs) 17:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

11) I've put my bit about Leslie White up - if you guys could proof read that would be fab, thank you! Muir97 (discuss • contribs) 18:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

12) Hi everyone, I am slightly relieved to hear I was not the only one with problems getting onto wikibooks today. Luckily it is all running now. I have been reading all of your sections and everything so far seems great, and I have also checked the links and it is all working smoothly, well done. Yesterday I uploaded my work on the definition of cultural determinism an today I was trying to add my section on GOETHE, but it wasn't letting me. I will try again, but if not I will try and figure out what is going wrong. I think KZillwood02 suggested it could be to do with my URL's. Purneet kainth (discuss • contribs) 19:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

13) Georgiamattie,how are yu getting on with the project? If you need a hand at all then let me know, I wouldn't mind adding a little for your theorists so we don't have a blank in our project. This is completely your choice :) Purneet kainth (discuss • contribs) 11:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC) I can also do a little bit to help you out as well if you need it :) Just let me know KZillwood02 (discuss • contribs) 22:37, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Also Muir97 thanks for finding a way to add pictures, this is really helpful as I was not able to trace exactly where I saw how to upload images. Purneet kainth (discuss • contribs) 19:21, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

14) Hi everyone! As you know I mentioned adding a glossary to the book. No one really responded in the big whole group so I went ahead and made a small section for it anyway at the end of the book. I think this will be really useful and will help any complex terms to be understood in a helpful manner. Just add to this if you think you have any. Purneet kainth (discuss • contribs) 21:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

15) So I am trying to upload a lovely picture of Goethe onto my section, and I just cannot seem to figure it out :( also, I am trying to add links into my section, like the small numbers, but it will then not let me save the changes, do you know how I can go about tackling this? thank you!! Purneet kainth (discuss • contribs) 21:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

16) Hey guys... I think our section is looking really good! Well done everyone! :) Just a small thing Ihatewasps would you possibly be able to upload a picture of Karl Marx, Marshall McLuhan and Barro into their sections for me? My computer doesn't seem to be letting me do it :( let me know if you can... thank you :) KZillwood02 (discuss • contribs) 22:33, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

17) Muir97 your section reads really well, sorry I was a little bit late responding tonight guys. Also Purneetkainth I take it you managed to upload your sections okay in the end? KZillwood02 (discuss • contribs) 22:36, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

18) Ihatewasps I sorted that reference that I'd put in the McLuhan section so it now comes up in the reference list in the correct format- I hope! :) Also guys I wrote a wee introduction in the introduction section for our history section on the main page! Feel free to change it, add to it or take bits out I just added it in so we had that section covered, hope you guys don't mind :) KZillwood02 (discuss • contribs) 22:59, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

19) Purneet kainth You're welcome for the picture coding - I admire anyone who can do it properly; I just look at it and panic haha. The glossary is a great idea, thanks for doing that! KZillwood02 thank you! And thanks for doing the introduction, that looks good:) Muir97 (discuss • contribs) 23:03, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

20) Muir97 I'm the same! haha! No problem like I said feel free to change it if you know a better way of wording it :) KZillwood02 (discuss • contribs) 23:08, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

21) Does anyone know how to put in a picture from an outside source? Leslie White's wikipedia page doesn't have a picture of him so I'm not sure how to go about that. Muir97 (discuss • contribs) 23:11, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

22) Hi guys I've also wrote a very short conclusion for our section. :) Like the introduction feel free to change/edit or add to it :) Just thought I'd make sure we have something down but like I said change it if you guys want :) Also Muir97 I was having the same trouble! I'm not really sure how to do it. I think Ihatewasps knows how to do that though! :) [[User:KZillwood02|KZillwood02 (discuss • contribs) 23:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

23) Cool, thanks so much KZillwood02! I'm writing up on my cultural determinism theorist and so far he's been sounding so deep and philosophical and I've been like "oh, wow, this guys got such a good brain, I'm so jealous" and then I read the subsection called Women and this was the only sentence for it: Fichte argued that "active citizenship, civic freedom and even property rights should be withheld from women, whose calling was to subject themselves utterly to the authority of their fathers and husbands." Not so keen on him anymore...Muir97 (discuss • contribs) 23:38, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

24) Muir97 haha! Theres maybe a little bit of capitalism there with getting the men out working while women slave away in the house and with the children!! KZillwood02 (discuss • contribs) 23:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

25) KZillwood02 haha yeah! So far I've not found anything explicitly about cultural determinism yet so I think I'll have to apply his philosophy to the topic - he's very focused on self-consciousness and "The I" but you guys will definitely have to check over it for me once I'm done to make sure it's understandable haha! Muir97 (discuss • contribs) 00:02, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

26) Hey guys, sorry for replying so late tonight. I'll just have a wee go at putting up photos for Marx, McLuhan and Barro for KZillwood02. To do it, I go to wikicommons and type in the search bar the person I want a photo of, click on the photo I want, click on the little button on the top bar thing that says "use this file on a wiki", copy the line of code that pops up, paste that into where I want it in the wikibook section, and then I copy and paste the line of code that someone else said they used to put a photo up... ... and then try to fit in the code from the photo in with the wikibook code. So basically, I'm not 100% sure what I'm doing, but I just keep clicking "show preview" and changing it around until it looks okay. Ihatewasps (discuss • contribs) 01:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC) (Update: Managed Marx and McLuhan but unfortunately could not find any photos for Barro on wikicommons. Ihatewasps (discuss • contribs) 01:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC))

27) Ihatewasps Thanks so much for the help, I wasn't having the same luck as you with the coding but I managed to work around it and finally got it looking somewhat decent! Do you think we should leave the pictures of the other theorists whose pictures aren't on wikicommons or should we try figure out how to use a picture from an outside source? Muir97 (discuss • contribs) 02:07, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

28) KZillwood02, Ihatewasps, Muir97 just getting to read this now :) yes I managed to upload my work onto the wikibooks, however I still need to put in my links as I gave up last night.. thanks for all your help. I also added to the Karl Marx section and expanded the definition of the terms cultural determinism and technological determinism.

Thanks Kristen for adding to the introduction section and conclusion. I have read over it and it sounds great, but if I can think of anything i'll add it in :) oh dear Muir97 you sure have a theorist with very set views on patriarchy!! Ihatewasps thanks for describing exatly how to upload a picture, I will try that again now!! :) Purneet kainth (discuss • contribs) 07:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

29) I didn't realize that one of you have added a picture of Goethe for me onto my sections, thank you so much!! Our chapter is looking really good, well done!!! :D Purneet kainth (discuss • contribs) 07:57, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

30) KZillwood02, Purneet kainth, Muir97 So happy with our section, its looking good! I tried to find the last few theorists photos on wikicommons, but had no luck. I'm not really sure how to get photos from an outside source that isn't wikicommons, but feel free if you have time to try. If not then don't worry about it, I think our section is looking fab regardless. I think we've worked great as a wee group! Go team The Stir Girls!. Ihatewasps (discuss • contribs) 11:05, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

31) Ihatewasps Thank you so much for getting those photos in for me!! my computer was being so so stubborn! KZillwood02 (discuss • contribs) 12:38, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

32) By the way, Well done everyone! Our chapter looks so good! Whether it is any good or not is another matter but I'm please with it! Well done girls :) KZillwood02 (discuss • contribs) 12:39, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

33) Purneet kainth haha I know, he's certainly not a fan of the independent ladies! I'm so happy with how our chapter looks - we've done so well for a group of panicking girls last Monday haha! Proud of us:D Muir97 (discuss • contribs) 13:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

34) Georgiamattie I've put those headings up for you and put them into the theorists table :) KZillwood02 (discuss • contribs) 13:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

35) WELL DONE EVERYONE!! Purneet kainth (discuss • contribs) 20:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Table of Theorists
Just thought I'd go ahead and make the table, please type in the theorists you are working on into the "example" sections. Thanks! Ihatewasps (discuss • contribs) 14:04, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for setting up the table! This will make it a lot easier for us to know whose doing what KZillwood02 (discuss • contribs) 16:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for adding your theorists to the table, KZillwood02! Ihatewasps (discuss • contribs) 17:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ihatewasps, KZillwood02, Purneet kainth, Georgiamattie, I was just wondering what theorists of yours had been taken? Maybe if there are like five left we could each do one theorist instead of two and that way we're all still managing to get some content in?Muir97 (discuss • contribs) 18:53, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Both of my theorists are only mentioned in the sub-subsections I've put in myself so if someone's stuck and doesn't have a theorist to talk about you could take Johann Gottlieb Fichte for Cultural Determinism?Muir97 (discuss • contribs) 18:57, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Muir97 I could see if i can find info on him cause other people have wrote about McLuhan :( KZillwood02 (discuss • contribs) 19:03, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Muir97 A section has been put up in our area for each of our theorists so you can keep Fichte if you like and ill just stick to writing a bit of information on McLuhan KZillwood02 (discuss • contribs) 20:07, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Ihatewasps I saw that you have put wiki links into the cultural determinism introduction for each of the theorists? How do you do this? I'm trying to do it for the technological introduction but it keeps knocking me back saying there has been an error? KZillwood02 (discuss • contribs) 11:44, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey KZillwood02. The exact same thing happened to me, but apparently on the Wikibook page, you can't link to a Wikipedia page by the URL, you have to type  and insert the article names each time into the code. Hope this helped, if you have any more problem I'll try to help! Ihatewasps (discuss • contribs) 11:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Ihatewasps Perfect that worked! Thank you! Was thinking also once we all write up our theorists we could juggle the order they come up on the page into chronological order, but just something to think about once we've all got sorted :) KZillwood02 (discuss • contribs) 12:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

KZillwood02, No problem, glad I could help! Sounds good, how are you getting on with your sections? Ihatewasps (discuss • contribs) 12:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Ihatewasps Okay! I should hopefully have them up on the main page by tonight! What about you? KZillwood02 (discuss • contribs) 12:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

KZillwood02 Okay, if you're happy with McLuhan then I'll stick with both of my theorists!:) Swapping the order so that it's chronological sounds good to me! I think I'm more likely to be done by tomorrow but I'll definitely not be putting it up last minute! Muir97 (discuss • contribs) 14:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Muir97 yeh Im happy thank you though. I'm only going to write a short paragraph on each I think. There's no rush as long as we all have it up and enough time to work together and each contribute a little bit to the introduction and conclusion :) Then we can change them into chronological order KZillwood02 (discuss • contribs) 14:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

KZillwood02 Yeah definitely, it'd be good to have a bit of relaxed time at the end to make sure everything looks nice and professional haha Muir97 (discuss • contribs) 17:42, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Main Concepts (4.)
CERJA

Notes from the meeting on the 3rd of March - The Initial plan (we'll keep changing the following list as we go if there's any changes to it).

1. Technological determinism
 * Introduction - TrishEl
 * 1.1. McLuhan; theorists - AmyBevs
 * 1.2. Theoretical example - CaDowns
 * 1.3. Technology extends the human body
 * 1.4. Medium is the message - TrishEl
 * 1.5. All media is in some ways "hot" or "cool" - Riinamaria
 * 1.6. Example - CaDowns
 * Conclusion - TrishEl

2. Cultural determinism
 * Introduction - Riinamaria
 * 2.1. Williams; theorists - AmyBevs
 * 2.2. Theoretical example - CaDowns
 * 2.3. Social groups
 * 2.4. Example (different approach) - CaDowns
 * Conclusion - Riinamaria

Riinamaria (discuss • contribs) 14:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

This is looking good! I've gone over the reading and found some more ideas that we should be able to slot into the plan above:

Technological Determinism:
 * Technology has changed how we perceive the world - is it a 'smaller' world as we are more connected?
 * Technology has influenced language and how we speak today.

Cultural Determinism:
 * People use technology as a tool - it was created by people as a way of solving problems.
 * People don't use technology in the intended way.

AmyBevs (discuss • contribs) 19:45, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Those are good ideas too Amy! Would it make sense to fit "technology has influenced language and how we speak today" into the proposed theoretical example about text speak? I feel like having one section all about speech like that might flow quite well. "People don't use technology in the intended way" could also fit into the social groups section and we could bring the whole online activism thing into it there. "Technology has changed how we percieve the world - is it a 'smaller' world as we are more connected?' seems as though it could be a good counter argument for the section on technology extending the human body too. What does everyone think? Jdwharris (discuss • contribs) 12:09, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

In order to have a template of what we're planning on doing, I have put these titles for each section as subheadings in our section on the Wikibook. Please feel free to edit them as we go along to make them more relevant to whatever it is that you write. Jdwharris (discuss • contribs) 12:26, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Those suggestions sound good - and Jdwharris, your ideas seem to fit quite well! Should we keep updating the list at the top of this section to keep track? Riinamaria (discuss • contribs) 19:15, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that Jdwharris! That'll make it all easier in the long run. I think those suggestions that you've mentioned sound good to me. I also think having the one section on speech would flow better, but I'm open to other ideas if we need to adapt. I've got some stuff to post up, so I'll gather my notes and start putting stuff up tomorrow. Yeah, Riinamaria, I agree about updating that list. We should probably keep on top of that, just to stop ourselves from chasing our tails. CaDowns (discuss • contribs) 19:27, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Jdwharris, those are good ways of fitting in these ideas. Once we have gathered all of our ideas together we should put them into the list above, and then it should be easier to divide tasks among ourselves.

AmyBevs (discuss • contribs) 21:29, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay I have some stuff to contribute.

Technological deteminism: 1.) All media is in some ways either "hot" or "cool" (depends on audience interactivity 2.) No medium cannot be understood until a new dominant medium has come to replace it (I guess only then we've enough distance to see the patterns and effects properly)

Don't have anything on cultural determinism that isn't already here. Riinamaria (discuss • contribs) 19:28, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Riinamaria, I remember seeing these in the reading too. I think that 'No medium cannot be understood until a new dominant medium has come to replace it' could fit in under 'The medium is the message' section. I'm not sure where the hot and cold technology idea would fit in - do you want to create a new section for it?

AmyBevs (discuss • contribs) 22:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Yup, I think the hot and cold topic should have a section of its own even if it ends up being short. I'll add it to the list! Riinamaria (discuss • contribs) 09:33, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

This is looking good. I think we're just about there with our structure but we can finalise it tomorrow at our meeting.

AmyBevs (discuss • contribs) 14:23, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi AmyBevs, is your group looking at the theorists behind technological and cultural determinism? Our group is doing history but we weren't sure whether we should also write about the theorists because we can't find much on the historical development without mentioning them? KZillwood02 (discuss • contribs) 11:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello KZillwood02 - yes, we are covering theorists, but more in relation to the actual theories themselves. We shouldn't be delving too much into the history of them. I'm sure if both groups cover theorists it will be fine - we're both covering the same topic, so there's bound to be some overlap. Once we've finished our sections we can them look over them and see if we need to make some changes if they are too similar.

AmyBevs (discuss • contribs) 13:42, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey guys - I've put my name beside the sections I am covering in the list above. I think I've got all the textbooks and everything I need so I'm going to make a start on this tomorrow.

AmyBevs (discuss • contribs) 13:44, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks AmyBevs was just making sure we were doing the right thing. In my group we've picked a theorist each for each topic and just going to write a few sentences about them so then we can decide what's relevant and what isn't over both our sections :) KZillwood02 (discuss • contribs) 16:26, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

KZillwood02 - sounds great! We can compare our sections later in the week when we've done most of our writing.

AmyBevs (discuss • contribs) 16:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

AmyBevs We've also put a table up on our wee section "history" on the page so once we've all filled it in you guys will be able to see what theorists we were planning to write a bit about :) KZillwood02 (discuss • contribs) 16:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Great, thank you KZillwood02 - that will be really useful. I'll try to keep my thoughts posted here as I write so you guys can see what I'm writing about as well.

AmyBevs (discuss • contribs) 16:40, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey folks. That's me put up an example of technological determinism. Please, feel free to change it around if need be. What do you guys think so far? CaDowns (discuss • contribs) 18:37, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Looks good so far - I've just made a couple of grammatical edits. For the referencing - is there a specific way of doing it that is mentioned somewhere, or did you copy how other people have done it? I'm quite confused on how to do it correctly!

AmyBevs (discuss • contribs) 19:17, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey guys - after looking over my notes I've decided that I'm just going to concentrate on McLuhan for Technological Determinism and Williams for Cultural Determinism. Our ideas that we will be discussing all stem from their theories, and the other theorists are being discussed in the History section of the chapter. Is this okay with everyone?

AmyBevs (discuss • contribs) 12:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say that's fine. I'm personally only citing their specific work in the case studies, so that'd probably work well for me. I've put up the start of the cultural determinist case study, and I'll be back to finish it up later on today. Please, feel free to have a gander and tell me if it needs changed! CaDowns (discuss • contribs) 12:26, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

That's me put in my two sections on the theorists, so take a look and let me know if everything is alright. I'm going to put in references and pictures tomorrow to finish it off.

AmyBevs (discuss • contribs) 20:16, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Those two sections are looking good! I'll read them over again, but they look pretty good to me! I've more or less finished up on the basic examples, but I'll keep tailoring it regardless. Might add a couple of pictures if they seem appropriate. Also, how do you folks feel about me renaming the second examples sub-headings as something like 'Case Study: Technological Perspective' and 'Case Study: Cultural Perspective' just to sort of show that I'm discussing the same topic from different vantage points? Thoughts? CaDowns (discuss • contribs) 21:27, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Started adding my stuff in but it's all still in progress! Gave a look to the other texts in our section and it is looking good. If you have anything to say about my texts even though they're still not quite done I would be happy to hear any suggestions. Oh and CaDowns that sub-heading suggestion sounds good! Riinamaria (discuss • contribs) 00:18, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi folks. The case studies are underway, and I'm writing and editing them both today. If you guys spot any errors, or think they need work, tell me! I ought to have it all sorted out and posted by tonight! CaDowns (discuss • contribs) 12:20, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey guys - I think that's me pretty much finished my sections, so feel free to take a read over them. I've looked at our section so far and it's looking really good. Good work team!

AmyBevs (discuss • contribs) 17:20, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay that's me finished my sections now! If anyone has anything they want me to change please could you let me know this evening because I'm going to be at work all day tomorrow and won't get a chance to edit anything - if not feel free to tweak stuff yourselves. Everyone's work is looking really good by the way! Jdwharris (discuss • contribs) 19:50, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. It's looking like a pretty good wee section! I'm basically done with my case studies, but I'll be editing them fairly regularly I imagine. Always something new to fix I reckon! CaDowns (discuss • contribs) 19:54, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay so I am pretty much done with my parts - will keep fixing them a bit but all in all they're up. I read through all our parts and I think it's looking very good and we managed to make a nice wee section for ourselves in this book! I like the pictures you've put up, makes it look more lively. Riinamaria (discuss • contribs) 22:59, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I've finished my parts now - I also added in a small section for our chapter in the introduction of the entire chapter. I'm not sure who started off the general introduction and conclusion but at the moment there's only something written about the main concepts in the introduction. In case no one's updated the conclusion when it gets closer to the deadlines I'll make sure to fix it. TrishEl (discuss • contribs) 13:28, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Opposition (5.)
WBOT

Hey guys I just added a short one sentence introduction to our section of the wikibook, feel free to reword/change it if you have any ideas! I also added the 4 theorists I'm aiming to cover as subheadings so feel free to add your own under whichever theory you're covering when you're ready CalSmith96 (discuss • contribs) 16:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey! That sounds pretty good. We can always add or change it later when we've written a bit more but definitely the right sort of thing. Clarenotdanni (discuss • contribs) 19:30, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Also upon further reading it seems that one of the theorists I was planning to cover for opposition against technological determinism (Ralph Schroeder) is actually pro technological determinism so I've taken him out of my section; if anyone covering arguments against cultural determinism wants to use him then feel free :) I'll probably just stick to the other three theorists I've written a little on already unless I find another one that isn't being tackled by another team member CalSmith96 (discuss • contribs) 20:13, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

CalSmith96 I think your sections on each theorist sound really good and cover all the bases. It's a good model for JacobTheOhioan, Danninotclare and me to follow Clarenotdanni (discuss • contribs) 21:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

CalSmith96, Clarenotdanni, Danninotclare, I think if we are going to add pictures it might be a good idea for each of us to pick one of the theorists that we are covering and stick with them to use as our photo/caption in order to maintain a bit of cleanliness to our section. Also, I was wondering what you all think about perhaps adding some sort of introduction that outlines the main ideas consistent with each opposition? Something to open up our discussion and create a flow for readers. Let me know what you all are thinking! JacobTheOhioan (discuss • contribs) 21:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

JacobTheOhioan I agree that limiting the number of images to one for each of us to stop the page looking too picture oriented is a good idea. I also think that a short introduction would be useful, would you want to take control of that? Or would we all just pitch our ideas for what to include and then summarise them all? Clarenotdanni (discuss • contribs) 22:42, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad you guys think my section is okay! And I agree with limiting images used, but I might even go as far as to say we maybe only use 2 images in total for our section to save it looking cluttered? Maybe three at a push? Since I have an image for opposition to technological it might be best if there's one for cultural too to balance it out, but if the section ends up looking fine with one or two more images then I say go for it! And adding a further introduction is a good idea too, if anyone has any particular ideas then just say! CalSmith96 (discuss • contribs) 22:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

CalSmith96 I think that its definitely a good idea to only use two images. If it is alright with JacobTheOhioan we could put in a photo of Raymond Williams, unless of course someone more significant comes up? Clarenotdanni (discuss • contribs) 23:26, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes I think the number of images can be played around with until we decide what looks best, but I'm perfectly fine with that Clarenotdanni. Regarding the introductions, it might be best to use separate ones for both technological and cultural determinism in which case CalSmith96 and Danninotclare could take the technological intro while Clarenotdanni and I could do the cultural one, but it would be helpful to collaborate with the entire group alongside that. Any suggestions? JacobTheOhioan (discuss • contribs) 23:43, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

That sounds good to me! Later I'll attempt to put a short intro for technological that anyone is free to change around and add to if they see fit CalSmith96 (discuss • contribs) 09:17, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

For the picture front, I want to try and do a profile type dropdown that would include a picture.So is it ok if I do one more? It might not work out but I'd like to try it out Danninotclare (discuss • contribs)

DanninotClare I think that sounds fine, three images won't look too crowded but anymore will so that should definitely be the limit. Clarenotdanni (discuss • contribs) 15:21, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

CalSmith96 I only have three theorists as well as two of the theorists I'm putting together because they seem to work in a pair so it makes more sense.Danninotclare (discuss • contribs) 16:35, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

JacobTheOhioan As we have decided to use technological theorists to support the opposition of cultural determinism, I think we should insert a small paragraph to make this clear? Clarenotdanni (discuss • contribs) 21:54, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey guys I put in our part to the introduction and conclusion since we're running out of time but it's super basic so if there's anything I missed then add as much as you want to it. You could even delete and rewrite the whole thing if you want I just wanted to have at least something in place in case we never got it done in time CalSmith96 (discuss • contribs) 11:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I changed a little to the technological determism introduction, I hope that's ok.Danninotclare (discuss • contribs)

The Future (6.)
Team Jimenez

Hey Guys! So I have been looking into our topic and I found a few things that I think would be great sub-topic ideas to get us started! First we need to separate Cultural and Technological Determinism. Please comment and tell me what you think!! I'm open to any kind of change, I just left a few links for various topics to help if needed! Also if we determine that these are the topics we want to focus on then just claim one of two, or bring your own! I think I am going to focus on technological determinism and the changes in Social Interaction. Thanks :)

Short Intro

- "The relationship between technology and society cannot be reduced to a simplistic cause-and-effect formula. It is, rather, an 'intertwining'", whereby technology does not determine but "...operates, and are operated upon in a complex social field" (Murphie and Potts).

Cultural Determinism
 * Side Note: I have found some sites combine some ideas of social and cultural determinism as well so just look carefully! Also I thought it was much more difficult to think of topics for Cultural Determinism, so please add or delete as needed!

- Quote "What matters is not the technology itself, but the social or economic system in which it is embedded" (Langdon Winner)

- Law of Suppression of Radical Potential & Brian Winston (focus on the life cycle and emergence of new technology)

- Changes in National Identity (immigration, people bringing new cultures to the country)

Technological Determinism

- Everyday Life (the microelectronics revolution and the job industry) http://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2624&context=cklawreview

- Social Interaction (including social media, generational communication techniques, etc.) (I am going to focus my efforts here!)

- The Future Portrayed by Hollywood (can reference movies like Her, 2001;Space Odessey,iRobot etc)

- Fear of the advancement in technology (Robots, being enslaved by our own creations) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sponsored/education/festival-of-the-imagination/11890618/future-of-technology-and-humans.html

I'm not even sure if I am doing this right so let me know what you think, Thanks Guys! Emily boston (discuss • contribs) 13:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Emily boston, I think that it is a good way to start! I can focus on Cultural determinism and changes in national identity or the fear of the advancement in technology. Should we start making changes on the book? Nuriaj95 (discuss • contribs) 20:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Emily boston Thank you for beginning to organize out the Future section of this Wikibook. I like your idea of splitting it up in 2 parts for cultural and technological. I will be happy to help out with Technological Determinism focusing on Everyday Life and talking about how technology will change our work force and efficiency of labor. I will reference that article your provided so that you for finding that wonderful source. Maybe the other members of our group can focus on cultural determinism. Hlat123 (discuss • contribs) 20:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok guys, I have added in a section about future work efficiency and also the the section on the effects on employment. Let me know if I should add in anything or change anything. Hlat123 (discuss • contribs) 19:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Jumping from another team just to let you  know that non-free pictures are taken down. You had one taken down so I recommend you replace it with one found on this site where content is not so copyrighted or try looking here for more. Srepanis (discuss • contribs) 00:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi I dont think we are supposed to put our signature on the actual wikibook page after what we write. It seems everyone else has left theirs off. Remember the professors can still see what you have written from your Contrib section.Hlat123 (discuss • contribs) 14:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC) !

Hi guys! Thank you Emily Boston for such a clear and helpful framework! I will definitely help with the short introduction talking about the intertwining influential relationship in the two determinisms and add topics for Cultural Determinism! I guess I will put how cultural norms has been and will determine the behavior of political arrangements into the topics, with the support of history in the past from places around the world. By the way, The quote from Langdon Winner is supportive! I guess there are similar argument raised by Mackenzie and Wajcman (1997) which suggest that the path of innovation and its social consequences are strongly shaped by society itself through the influence of culture and other aspects. Chuyanlol (discuss • contribs) 15:32, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey Everyone! Looks like we have gotten a fair bit done so far! I'm hoping to finish my section tonight then contribute to the intro and conclusion. Looks good :) Emily boston (discuss • contribs) 18:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

EmLouBrough Hi! Did you see this section down here? I purposefully put 7 different options for topics and I think there are enough for everyone to have at least one :) Also you are free to add whatever you like if you find relevant information or topics! I hope this helps! Emily boston (discuss • contribs) 18:20, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Emily boston Ah, I see it now! Thanks for coming up with all of those. If it's all right with everyone, then, I'll do the law of suppression of radical potential. EmLouBrough (discuss • contribs) 19:06, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi all! Do you think we need to do more topics in cultural or technological determinism? or just work on the conclusion to finish our work? Thank you! Nuriaj95 (discuss • contribs) 21:03, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Nuriaj95 Hi! I think we are solid unless anyone has any additional ideas they want to put in! If so go for it :) I think all we have now is the section in the conclusion! Emily boston (discuss • contribs) 02:31, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Emily boston! okay I will start writing the conclusion of our topic! It will be helpful if everyone tries to sum up its section, so that we can build the conclusion :) Nuriaj95 (discuss • contribs) 12:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey guys! I wrote our part in the main conclusion (the part for the whole wiki book). Take a look and hopefully its okay! From what I can tell we just need a short conclusion to our section but I do not think its 100% necessary it would look nice. Although someone or multiple people should contribute to the "Future" section of the main Wiki books Introduction, if you haven't already. :) Other than that great job guys! Emily boston (discuss • contribs) 14:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Emily boston! Thanks for that, I was thinking in a longer conlusion, but I`m sure it's pretty good! Thank you for that. Should we write a conclusion in our section? Or you guys think we`re done? Thanks!Nuriaj95 (discuss • contribs) 16:03, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Now I see what you meant by the intro! I'll write something there. Cheers Nuriaj95 (discuss • contribs) 16:05, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

HI Sorry, I just saw this and already wrote something quick down for the intro! I might try to add a few more pictures into our section to better the look. Hlat123 (discuss • contribs) 16:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

It's fine! Thank you! Nuriaj95 (discuss • contribs) 16:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Conclusion (7.)
Hi guys! Should we start splitting up the workload for the conclusion once we have all finished our topics, or should we split it up sooner so groups who finish earlier can make a start on it? Kieranmcm95 (discuss • contribs) 15:13, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi! I think we should probably wait till everyone is nearly finished or maybe by Wednesday to start splitting things up just so that we can make it as in tune with what we have said in each chapter as possible? Clarenotdanni (discuss • contribs) 16:03, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree, I think we should wait until around Wednesday before we divee up the conclusion and introduction. If anyone finishes early and wants to give it a stab then they could probably put their ideas or a quick draft of it in this section until everyone else finishes up? CalSmith96 (discuss • contribs) 18:24, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I think that's a good idea. Then they could help to keep it organised when everyone else starts adding to it later. Clarenotdanni (discuss • contribs) 19:31, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan of action. So we'll aim to get the majority of our work done for our chapters by Wednesday and that way we can at least get stuck into and make a start on the conclusion and introduction. Rossmurray26 (discuss • contribs) 21:01, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

That sounds good we want to make sure the conclusion fits in with the points we have raised, so yeah around Wednesday is the best time to start looking at it Kieranmcm95 (discuss • contribs) 22:42, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay, hopefully Wednesday we can go over what we have and come up with a good conclusion together. WiKirsten (discuss • contribs)- WiKirsten

Anyone had any thoughts? Do you think each group should attempt to come up with a short conclusion to their own chapter and then we can all try and piece each conclusion together to make a coherent end that sums up the whole chapter, or will that maybe be a bit too all over the place? CalSmith96 (discuss • contribs) 12:41, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi everyone! I was doing the history section- I wasn't sure how everyone wanted to do the conclusion so I just set the section up the same way we did the introduction and thought each group could just write their own wee conclusion. Feel free to change this into a different way of doing it I just thought this might start the ball rolling for the final part. KZillwood02 (discuss • contribs) 23:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)