Talk:Digital Media & Culture: Collaborative Essay Collection 2018/Always-on Culture/Research Question 1:/To what extent do we agree with Sherry Turkle's argument that digital connections offer only an illusion of companionship?

The essay page and the discussion page (the one you're reading right now) has seemed to have disappeared. I'll populate the essay page with a template so you can start working there, but also, crucially we need to see lots of discussion recorded here for you to amass "contribs" which are used to evaluate engagement. It may well be that you have been using other discussion pages on this wiki book to document your discussion (which is fine as all discussion recorded here is counted in your "contribs". However, the purpose of me creating this page is for you to have a ready-made space to record your discussions. For example, take a look at what never off are doing on their page. They are beginning to amass some substantial discussions, and you could do likewise. GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 13:09, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello

We will be meeting this week to get a solid outline of our essay on the Always On Culture. We will continue to discuss on this page rather than the other wiki pages or messaging apps to accumulate contribs. Summer.schnellbach (discuss • contribs) 16:16, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi

Ahead of our meeting today, I just wanted to suggest what we could do to really get started on essay. We have quite a lot of work to do. I think we should begin to establish what we are going to talk about in our essay, and figure out a general structure so we can determine what concepts we will discuss. We could also collate our readings and delegate readings if we need to do more research. The question is quite broad so we need to make sure we're not covering so much ground that it becomes overwhelming.

I think we could even get an introduction written today, just so we have something written down! Or am I getting a bit ahead of myself?

ilmurray (discuss • contribs) 12:12, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I just copied and pasted the discussion section from the other page, just to add a bit more structure to our discussion and to make sure we don't lose everything we added before.

ilmurray (discuss • contribs) 13:55, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree that today we should get our introduction written. We also need to decide who wants to write what, if we are interested in a certain aspect of the topic. We should also get the outline done so we know where we are going after today.
 * Summer.schnellbach (discuss • contribs) 14:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Met with the group and we have decided that we agree with the statement to a certain extent. Celine Hunt (discuss • contribs) 15:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

This page from an older wiki project might be useful in terms of what we want to achieve with our collaborative essay. Ilmurray (discuss • contribs) 15:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I was reading the essay linked, and I do not think we should let that intimidate us. We have a focused research question as opposed to addressing multiple aspects of the Always-On culture. Although we are addressing additional aspects, we are relating it back to our research question. Summer.schnellbach (discuss • contribs) 10:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Prior to meeting today, the group was able to clarify who was focusing on which section meaning we can all focus on different set readings. We collaborated on a draft of the essay introduction which can be seen on below. We have decided to meet again on Friday to discuss further. Vw428 (discuss • contribs) 18:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

For tomorrow (Friday) we should continue to draft. Prior to meeting we should have some research done on our own areas of main focus so we can begin drafting those sections and collaborating on next steps. Also, be on the lookout for multimedia that could be useful for our essay.
 * Summer.schnellbach (discuss • contribs) 14:13, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I am having a difficult time with the footnotes and references page. I added my section on Infoglut down under main concepts towards the bottom of the page. I was able to add my footnote, but it show as 2 when I need it be be 1 since it makes sense alphabetically. Do either of you know how to fix this? I even tried a 'notes' section like the other group did, but I can't get it to work. Summer.schnellbach (discuss • contribs) 11:23, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

To meet assignment criteria of 3000 words, we will each need to contribute ~at least~ 750 words. Summer.schnellbach (discuss • contribs) 14:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much we intend to write for the sections we are all collaborating on (convergence and cognitive surplus), but I was thinking after we all finish writing our own sections, we should try to aim to write 100-200 words each for those sections. Then if they are still missing something, we can add more. What do you think? Ilmurray (discuss • contribs) 15:37, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes that sounds like a fair plan to me! Hope you are all getting on good with your sections and hopefully see you all on Monday to collaborate again. Vw428 (discuss • contribs) 16:20, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

So far, the articles I am citing do not have page numbers as do the ones I see you girls are using. How should I be citing these in text? Last name and year as per traditional APA instead? Summer.schnellbach (discuss • contribs) 14:02, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I think that works. Did Greg say we have to cite the page number or do we just have to use the footnotes? Ilmurray (discuss • contribs) 17:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I hadn't asked, but I looked at the linked essay and they just used footnotes. I just want it to look uniform and not be the only one not using page numbers. Summer.schnellbach (discuss • contribs) 13:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I've been using page numbers but Greg didn't actually say we had to in the email he sent us, so if we can't get it to look consistent we could just remove them? We could double check with Greg today. Vw428 (discuss • contribs) 14:55, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Do any of you know how to add media files such as pictures? I tried but it isn't allowed if it's not original work or if the copyright belongs to someone else. Summer.schnellbach (discuss • contribs) 19:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Celine, have you finished your section for the essay yet? We still have a week but I'm just wary of the word count and any other edits we need to make to the essay before the deadline. Ilmurray (discuss • contribs) 18:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey, I am still working on it. I am realizing that a lot of what my topic covers is stuff you mention in your section. I am going to try to find some new information, if possible. I will let you know when I am done. Celine Hunt (discuss • contribs) 14:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi   Hi everyone! Mary (MaryCastoridae56) left us a comment about what we could do to improve our essay. She brought up that our references could use some work so I'm just going to tidy them up a little bit today!. Also, Celine do you have any updates on your section? Ilmurray (discuss • contribs) 11:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Let me know what I can do to help! Summer.schnellbach (discuss • contribs) 14:40, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Were we still wanting to add another discussion category to add more contribs? Summer.schnellbach (discuss • contribs) 14:40, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

About the discussion section, I don't see why not! Maybe we could just talk about what we learned from writing this essay etc? Also how was Ireland? (It was Ireland you went to, right?) Ilmurray (discuss • contribs) 14:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Hey guys another discussion section on what we've learned sounds great. Hope you're all well! Vw428 (discuss • contribs) 16:27, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Been looking over references after seeing the comment from MaryCastoridae56 from team Never Off, and tidied up a few of the Sherry Turkle ones which I think seemed to be the main issue but will keep my eye out for more! Vw428 (discuss • contribs) 16:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Vaila! I think our references do look a lot tidier now! Ilmurray (discuss • contribs) 16:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Does anyone know how to make footnotes? I need to add those and then I am set!Celine Hunt (discuss • contribs) 15:45, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, if there is anything else you want to add to my section please go ahead.Celine Hunt (discuss • contribs) 15:45, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Do we just need to add a word count and then we're done? And well done guys! I think we've written a pretty great essay! Ilmurray (discuss • contribs) 20:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Only seen this now but I see you've added the word count Iana, thanks! Yes it's looking good well done everyone, great job! Vw428 (discuss • contribs) 21:59, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Iana for adding the word count. How are you guys doing? Summer, I forgot to ask how was your trip to Ireland? Celine Hunt (discuss • contribs) 16:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

VSCI: Essay Discussion Section
This is the discussion section for the collaborative essay of the group VCSI, consisting of the users: Vw428, Celine Hunt, Summer.schnellbach and ilmurray. We will plan, organise, write, edit and finalise our essay here before we publish it in the Digital Media & Culture Collaborative Essay Collection 2018. Insert your content in the relevant section or create new and more adequate ones. Contributions by anyone are more than welcome. If you are amending someone’s post or make suggestions please use the Reply to Template to notify the author about your post. Please always sign your contributions. ilmurray (discuss • contribs) 15:59, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Topic and Essay Question
According to Sherry Turkle, “Digital connections and the sociable robot may offer the illusion of companionship without the demands of friendship.” (2011, p.1) To what extent do you agree with this statement?

Brain Storming
We will use this section to discuss arguments, content and pitch ideas to each other.

Research Topic Ideas: Group talked about idea of health impacts Talk about doing a survey Summer.schnellbach (discuss • contribs) 16:23, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Implicated physical and mental health impacts associated with Always-On culture: too broad? Need to research into psychology, mental health, neurology, science, etc.

Possibility: In what way has media and communications research tackled the social and psychological implications of always-on culture? Thought? Summer.schnellbach (discuss • contribs) 14:43, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Sherry Turkle: Alone Together quotes - ideas for research question - https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/13566692-alone-together-why-we-expect-more-from-technology-and-less-from-each-ot

Summer.schnellbach (discuss • contribs) 13:26, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Visitor Comments
Hi @Vw428: @Celine Hunt: @Summer.schnellbach: @Ilmurray:

I have seen that your essay is about always-on culture. My group (@Kab00094: @Lauraf303: @Jfm00011: @Kgr00003:) and I are looking at always-on culture too. Therefore, we should share as many of our sources and ideas as we can. I am focussing on disconnectivity for our essay and was reading about how online behaviour of people differs from how they might act in the ‘offline’-world. I found the suggestion of the Disinhibition Effect, as proposed by Suler, very interesting. Maybe you too could consider how people can be sometimes vastly different to their real-life personality as the internet helps facilitate anonymity and a peer or friendship like environment.

Here is the full citation and a link to Suler’s article: Suler, J. (2005). The online disinhibition effect. International Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic Studies, 2(2), 184-188. Doi: 10.1002/aps.42

We would be delighted if you would visit and contribute to our discussion page too. Accessible at Always-on Culture: Research Question 2: Discussion.

MaryCastoridae56 (discuss • contribs) 10:13, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello @Vw428: @Celine Hunt: @Summer.schnellbach: @Ilmurray:

I think your essay question is very interesting and crucial to how we should approach digital connectivity. I suspect you would mostly be looking into social media platforms and communication across these? what other facets of digital connection do you think you may look at?, as you can see I am quite interested in the topic!. I find myself seeing these digital connections not as illusions but as non-illusory extensions of our physical communication boundaries, enriching us rather than deluding us into false relationships. You will all be quite more informed about the topic while focusing on this essay than I, looking forward to your work and response. My group 'Taran-trio' (as you may have guessed we love Tarantino film's and puns) consists of myself @Jackaodha: and my teammates @KaYul: @JamesFDTD99:

we are doing our collective essay on Transmediality and I think a lot of what we will be covering overlaps with concepts of digital connection, we are looking at a few case studies of fan culture online, we aim to explore the how and why, and the moral implications. For example I am looking at how context shifts when an entity becomes a meme and how these memes develop community driven online communities. I reckon we should both check out each other's work to create a more nuanced understanding of elements involved within Digital Media & Culture. Jackaodha (discuss • contribs) 14:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello Group VCSI, , !

has provided me with the link to your essay page and I gave it a read. I really really enjoyed reading your essay, especially as it is dealing with Always-on Culture just like my groups essay it too. It is very interesting to get a grasp of your take on the topic. The overall layout of the essay looks very professional and I really like the pictures that you have found. They make the text livelier I think.

There are however a few things that I have noticed. Firstly, maybe the word count at the bottom of the essay. That’ll help the tutors when marking as they do not have to copy and paste the text into Word to check the word count.

Secondly, your references look really good already. Congratulations, the referencing system is a tricky one, especially in combination with the APA system! But with a few tweaks you can improve them even more: to begin with I saw that you have inserted weblinks to electronic sources, which is really useful already. However, with the standards (as far as I have seen on Wiki*edia platforms) you hyperlink the book title for books (including if you only taking a chapter out of a book), Doi (and if that is not available the Journal name) for journals and the website name for websites. For examples look at how we did it on our essay page here.) To do so you just put the ‘[‘, then the hyperlink directly after that without any spaces, then the text that you want displayed as the hyperlink, e.g. the book title.

Furthermore, when it comes to the Wiki MarkUp referencing system you only put each refence once into the refence list, if you use the source more than once, you add the small abc (etc.) hyperlinks. (refer to our essay for examples of that too). In order to do that you format your initial reference a bit differently. Instead of just putting the ref between < and >, then the source and then /ref between < and > to end the reference you put ‘ref name=AuthorsurnameYear’ between < and >. Using this has two advantages. Firstly, when you use a source the second time you only have to put ‘< ref name = AuthornameYear / ref >’ to put in the source. And secondly, the small abc function will appear. I also put up a few tips on our discussion page here or go to the Wikipedia page Referencing for Beginners for a more detailed guide.

This comment got really long. I hope you found it useful and not too harsh. All in all, your essay is really well written and formatted and a few small adjustments will make it even better. My group NeverOff and I would be delighted if you could read our essay and leave a comment as well! Our essay is accessible here. Good luck with all of your studies! MaryCastoridae56 (discuss • contribs) 08:36, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback! Don't worry, I didn't find it too harsh, it was actually very helpful for improving the references. I didn't even notice that a few of the references were repeated because I was so concerned with my own section of the essay. Because of your feedback I was able to tidy up our references a little bit. Your group's essay and your tips were great in helping me understand how to make our references look more organised. One person in our group hasn't finished their section which is why there is no word count yet, however we will add it when our essay is completed.

I read your group's essay and I found it very enlightening and informative. Your group took a very thorough approach in answering your question and it was a very interesting read! If I had to suggest one thing you could improve on, you could possible take another look at your conclusion. You cover a lot of content in a very small number of sentences and it is quite overwhelming. I had to read it over a few times to fully grasp what you were explaining. Hope this wasn't too harsh!

Ilmurray (discuss • contribs) 12:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello !

I am very glad to hear that you found my suggestions and advise very useful. I can imagine that you were very focussed on delivering the best content in your assigned section. But the option to have other notice mistakes or room for improvement is the beauty of a website like this. I found it very helpful that I could run ideas by my other group members and have them look out for mistakes or suggest new connections or arguments. I believe this way we achieved a stronger end result that any of us could have produced individually. How do you feel about this?

I hope the last section gets added soon so you can do the finishing touches to the essay. Maybe give the person a small notice and enquire as to when the section will be made available? The reply to function might help with this, as Wikibooks tends to send out e-mail notification with for them too.

Thank you for giving our essay a read and liking it. I will definitely make sure to read over the conclusion again. Albeit it is always very difficult to summarise ones finding in only one paragraph. But I will see what I can do. Thank you for pointing this out!

Best of luck with your essay and other assignments. I hope the missing section will be included soon. MaryCastoridae56 (discuss • contribs) 10:23, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Hey VCSI, ,

I've just had a look around your page and it looks really good, I like how there is a lot of information but it is very well structured so doesn't look messy. I was having a think about your essay question as I found it quite interesting, I have watched Sherry Turkle's Ted Talk and found much of what she said really relevant and intriguing. I particularly like this notion of being tethered to the internet as I think it is a great metaphor. It's interesting to think about how that occurs despite there being no physical tether to the technology itself. It's somewhat funny that it used to be technology that was tethered, ie before the days of wireless internet and mobile phones, to now us being the tethered object even if its not a physical thing. I've read through most of your essay and it does seem really interesting, perhaps if you have time you could give our essay a look over and see if there are any similarities or differences for that matter that we could discuss as our essay is also regarding Always-on culture. Have a good day! Lauraf303 (discuss • contribs) 04:14, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Laura, thanks for the feedback and insight on our essay. I too found Sherry Turkle’s Ted Talk really intriguing, and the point she makes about bow the issue lies in the relationship we have with technology, rather than the amount we use technology really made me question my own relationship with my mobile phone. I will check your group’s essay out today, thanks again for your comment! Vw428 (discuss • contribs) 16:38, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Hey team just wanted to say a big well done, I think we've all done massively well. Good luck to you all!MTxPrincipessa18 (discuss • contribs) 10:56, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Quotes
"I was taken aback when Stephen Colbert (...) asked me a profound question during an appearance on his show: "Don't all these little tweets, these little sips of online conversation, add up to one big gulp of real conversation?" My answer was no. Many sips of connection don't add up to a gulp of conversation." (Turkle, 2015: (page number needed))

Turkle, S. (2015) Reclaiming conversation: the power of talk in a digital age. New York, NY: Penguin Books

Ilmurray (discuss • contribs) 17:06, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Sherry Turkle's TED Talk:
 * Goldilocks Effect: not too close, not too far, just right.
 * We sacrifice conversation for connection
 * Human relationships are messy and demanding. We clean them up with technology
 * We expect more from technology and less from each other
 * Feeling like 'no one is listening to me' makes us want to create machine companions
 * Summer.schnellbach (discuss • contribs) 17:00, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Ted Talk – connected but alone? By Sherry Turkle
http://https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7Xr3AsBEK4"Celine Hunt (discuss • contribs) 16:33, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Those little devices in our pockets are so psychologically powerful. Not only do they change what we do but they change who we are [2:49]

Examples
 * People text in meetings
 * They go online shopping
 * Facebook during classes, presentations and all meetings
 * Text and email during meals

Why does this matter? We are setting up ourselves for trouble

Alone Together
 * People want to be with each other but also elsewhere (connected to all different places they want to be)
 * Customize their lives
 * The thing that matters most to them is control of where they put their attention (only pay attention to things we are interested in)

Hiding from each other 18 yr old boy said to Turkle “..someday, someday, but certainly not now, I would like to learn how to have a conversation…” [6:25]
 * End up hiding from each other even though were are constantly connected to each other
 * Goldilocks effect- Not to close, not to far, just right
 * Adolescent who needs to develop face to face relationships

What’s wrong with conversations? 1)It takes place in real time 2)You cant control what your going to say Texting, emailing and posting let us to present the self as we want to be

We sacrifice conversation-->connection

“I’d rather text than talk..” [9:06]

The feeling that no one is listening


 * That’s why its appealing to have a Facebook page, Twitter page, etc.
 * Spend more time with machines that care more about us (offer companionship)
 * Turkle’s research – worked in nursing homes and brought in social robots [10:39]

“We expect more from technology and less from each other” [12:05] “We’re lonely but we’re afraid of intimacy” [12:26] “The illusion of companionship without the demands of friendship” [12:32]

Phones offer us 3 gratifying fantasies 1)We can put our attention wherever we want it to be 2)We always be heard 3)We will never have to be alone

“Being alone feels like a problem that needs to be solved” [13:29] “I share therefore I am” – we use technology to define ourselves (we don’t have connection; we don’t feel like ourselves)
 * Connection is more like a symptom than a cure
 * It expresses but doesn’t solve an underlying problem
 * Constant connection is changing the way people see themselves
 * Before “ I have a felling, I want to make a call” Now “ I want to have a feeling, I need to send a text”

Connection Isolation
 * ability to be separate
 * “If we don’t teach our children to be alone, they will only know how to be lonely” [12:33]

Time to Talk Celine Hunt (discuss • contribs) 14:23, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * create sacred spaces to have conversations (ex. dinner table)
 * Listen to the boring bits

(Academic) Reading
This section is to share and suggest (academic) sources that could be used for the essay.

Participating in the Always-On Lifestyle - danah boyd (from The Social Media Reader by Michael Mindiberg)https://quod-lib-umich-edu.ezproxy.stir.ac.uk/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=acls;cc=acls;rgn=full%20text;idno=heb31970.0001.001;didno=heb31970.0001.001;view=image;seq=00000081;node=heb31970.0001.001%3A5.1 Summer.schnellbach (discuss • contribs) 15:16, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Juneja, M. (2015). Robots as companions: are we ready? mHealth, 1, 17. http://doi.org/10.3978/j.issn.2306-9740.2015.07.02 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5344113/

Summer.schnellbach (discuss • contribs) 13:58, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Metzler, T. A., Lewis, L. M. and Pope, L. C. (2016), Could robots become authentic companions in nursing care?. Nursing Philosophy, 17: 36–48. doi:10.1111/nup.12101 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.ezproxy.library.und.edu/doi/10.1111/nup.12101/full

Summer.schnellbach (discuss • contribs) 17:40, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm using this for the annotated bibliography exercise, but this might be useful for the essay considering that it's also from Sherry Turkle.

Turkle, S. (2008). Always-on/always-on-you: The tethered self. Handbook of mobile communication studies, 121-137. http://sodacity.net/system/files/Sherry-Turkle_The-Tethered-Self.pdf ilmurray (discuss • contribs) 12:57, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Turkle, S. (2015). Reclaiming conversation: the power of talk in a digital age. New York, NY: Penguin Books. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=POpJBgAAQBAJ&pg=PT34&lpg=PT34&dq=little+sips+add+up+to+one+big+gulp&source=bl&ots=Toz-jAFeIX&sig=9q6YknCZZLd18YeRyLCyqwU-k6Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiZoJ-4r_vZAhVeFMAKHbDxDK4Q6AEIPjAD#v=onepage&q=little%20sips%20add%20up%20to%20one%20big%20gulp&f=false Ilmurray (discuss • contribs) 16:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Useful Theorists Vw428 (discuss • contribs) 15:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Jaron Lanier
 * Mark Andrejevic - Infoglut
 * Pepita Hesselberth - Disconnectivity
 * Light and Cassidy - Disconnectivity and prevention of connection
 * Portwood-Stacer - Disconnectivity and media refusal

Ilmurray (discuss • contribs) 14:33, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sherry Turkle - Always-on and tethered self
 * dana boyd - Always-on
 * Henry Jenkins - Convergence

Iana
Turkle, S. (2008). Always-on/always-on-you: The tethered self. Handbook of mobile communication studies, 121-137.

In this article, Sherry Turkle argues that our lives online and offline are no longer separate and that instead, we operate in a liminal space between them, which she refers to as the “tethered self”. Turkle demonstrates this by describing the public situations that we signal to others that we are connected to our devices and create a “private bubble” for ourselves. Through this article, Turkle develops a more nuanced and layered argument in the way that she states that our lives online blend with the real world. This article will be useful for the collaborative essay because the question revolves around a quote from Sherry Turkle, who also wrote this article. It would be beneficial for finding more information in regards to her research on always-on culture, and gaining a more thorough understanding of her argument. Ilmurray (discuss • contribs) 15:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Celine
Miller, D., Costa, E., Haynes, N., McDonald, T., Nicolescu, R., Sinanan, J., Spyer, J., Venkatraman, S., and Wang, X. (2016) How the World Changed Social Media. London: UCL Press. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1g69z35

In this article Miller et al. explore the popular concern that increase digital mediation leads to less authentic relationships than offline ones, the sociality in the age of social media and new possibilities for human experience and social relationships that have been created through the use of social media. The authors use data gained from their field sites including Brazil, China and Chile to better understand the two kinds of relationships: online and offline. Their research focuses on the social relationships in the social media age by using Goffman’s theoretical concept of framing to think through the relationship between online and offline. Miller et al. regard offline and online as two frames in our daily lives. The article is useful to my research topic, as Miller et al. discuss the impacts of social media and its ability to categorize social relationships. The main limitation from this article was the lack of evidence that scalable sociality encompasses the possibility that social media can be more intense and intimate than offline relationships. This article will not form the basis of my research but will be useful supplementary information. Celine Hunt (discuss • contribs) 15:25, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Summer
Metzler, T. A., Lewis, L. M. and Pope, L. C. (2016), Could robots become authentic companions in nursing care?. Nursing Philosophy, 17: 36–48. doi:10.1111/nup.12101

Could Robots Become Authentic Companions in Nursing Care?

In this article by Metzler et. al., they question whether or not robots could make suitable companions in nursing homes by examining a robot's emotional capacity, looking at the opposing view, and considering revisions in AI modelling to better compliment human emotions. The authors offer scientific and philosophical reasons for why confusing actual human emotion with artificial intelligence portraying human emotions can be a mistake. Their research focuses on whether or not 'socially assistive' robots, or SARs, are capable of taking care of the elderly. While there is still no clear answer to whether or not artificial intelligence is useful in caring for the elderly, the information provided in this journal will be useful in my own research into how AI offers companionship, even if it is not genuine friendship. The main limitation I found from this article was the level of difficulty in understanding what the authors were trying to say and get across. Additionally, it would have strengthened their argument to do their own study rather than look at what has already been done. More research is needed in this particular area of study to truly know how beneficial robots can be in providing care, companionship, and friendship. There is more information on this topic from Lostraven that discusses more on robots providing care. (https://en.m.wikibooks.org/wiki/I_Dream_of_IoT.) The works of Metzler, et. al. may not provide the basis for my research, but it will be useful supplementary information.
 * Summer.schnellbach (discuss • contribs) 15:24, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Vaila
Jensons, J.L., & Sørensen, A.S. (2013). Nobody has 257 Friends. NORDICOM Review, 34(1), 49-62. Accession Number: 89173923

In this article, Jensons and Sørensen test their hypothesis that Facebook friends have more of an explicit relationship than people do in “real life”. The research was carried out in Denmark between 2009-2011 and consisted of various qualitative and quantitative research methods including focus groups and profile observations. More than half of users agreed Facebook brings them closer to friends and family, and most participants agreed the notion of Facebook friendship is different than in “real life”. These findings are useful for the collaborative essay on Always-on Culture as it provides evidence both for and against the notion that online communication offers a replacement for “real life” friends. A limitation of the article is that the study focussed on the profile of users and their relationships with friends rather than the private messaging feature, which I think would have been the most interesting and relevant part to study. The authors conclude that it depends on everyone’s personal degree of closeness to their Facebook friends on whether the site can replace companionship. This article will not be the main basis of my research but will help to reinforce arguments regarding attitudes towards online interactions as replacement for face to face communication. Vw428 (discuss • contribs) 15:25, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Essay Outline
Short outline of content and line of argument for our essay. Do not forget to reference thoughts and sections that are not your own in the APA referencing system and to include page numbers.

 Introduction 


 * Define Always-On Culture (Turkle vs. Boyd)

 Main Concepts 


 * Tethered self (Iana)
 * Levels of friendships (Categorization of social relationships)- * Goffman's Theoretical concept of framing (Celine)
 * Inflogut (Summer)
 * Information Overload / cognitive surplus (All)
 * Convergence - * getting information/notifications right away (All)
 * Disconnectivity (Hesselberth) (Vaila)
 * Internet of Things/Robots (Summer)
 * Sociable Robots (Summer)

Names are here as a guide, but we can all add to every section.

Celine Hunt (discuss • contribs) 16:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC) Vw428 (discuss • contribs) 16:11, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Paragraph suggestions
Post your draft paragraphs here for peer review, proofreading etc. Indicate where it fits into the essay roughly (i.e. introduction, main body, conclusion), by referring to the essay outline. Do not forget your references in APA (including page numbers).

Introduction Draft

In Sherry Turkle’s book Alone Together she discusses the concept of always-on culture and states how digital connections offer the “illusion of companionship without the demands of friendship” (2011, p.1). Turkle continues this discussion in her TedTalk “Connected, but alone?” and states that these digital connections give us 3 gratifying fantasies: (1) we can put our attention where we want, (2) we will always be heard, and (3) never have to be alone. [Insert description of always-on culture]. By exploring several concepts closely related to always-on culture, we will discuss whether we agree with Turkle’s argument that social media provides companionship, but not real friendship. Vw428 (discuss • contribs) 17:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Reading this now, I think we should say "digital connections" rather than social media becuase I wouldn't consider texting, etc. to be social media. Also, robots and AI are not social media
 * Summer.schnellbach (discuss • contribs) 14:39, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

How is this for a description of always-on culture?:

Always-on culture is a recent development that has unfolded in our society. It is the expectation that everyone must always be connected to the Internet, regardless of the social context.

Ilmurray (discuss • contribs) 20:49, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Multimedia suggestions
This section can be used to share media such as images, videos, podcasts (etc.) that could be useful for audio-visual contributions to the essay. Please do not forget to include sources here too.

I think Sherry Turkle's TedTalk 'Connected, but alone?' would be a relevant video to include in the essay: https://www.ted.com/talks/sherry_turkle_alone_together Vw428 (discuss • contribs) 16:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Found this for Robots section: Summer.schnellbach (discuss • contribs) 17:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Thought this would be useful for the tethered self section: Vw428 (discuss • contribs) 17:57, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Further Discussion
Hi everyone! As we talked about earlier, this is just an extra discussion section to talk about anything outside the essay. This module has been rather enlightening for me - I think the ideas that we have explored over the semester are things we are vaguely familiar of, but putting a name to these abstract concepts has deepened my understanding of digital media. Especially since our collaborative essay is about always-on culture, I am more acutely aware of how much time I spend on the Internet and my devices and what I'm doing on them.

This module also feels very relevant in this time with the recent [Cambridge Analytica scandal]. It's quite scary to think about how much information these tech companies have about us and how they are basically selling our lives for profit. With everything that's going on, I wish I could delete my Facebook account, but Messenger has become so necessary that I can't see myself deleting my account until after I finish university.

Ilmurray (discuss • contribs) 16:53, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I would agree with you, Iana, that many of the concepts were familiar, yet I didn't necessarily realize that there was a lot of study around the ideas. I am also more aware of how I spend my time on social media and especially what information of mine is being shared without my knowledge. It is quite scary. Summer.schnellbach (discuss • contribs) 16:10, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Introduction
In Sherry Turkle’s book Alone Together she discusses the concept of always-on culture and states how digital connections offer the “illusion of companionship without the demands of friendship”. Turkle continues this discussion in her TedTalk “Connected, but alone?” and states that these digital connections give us 3 gratifying fantasies: (1) we can put our attention where we want, (2) we will always be heard, and (3) never have to be alone. Always-on culture is a recent development that has unfolded in our society. It is the expectation that everyone must always be connected to the Internet, regardless of the social context. By exploring several concepts closely related to always-on culture, we will discuss whether we agree with Turkle’s argument that digital connections provides companionship, but not real friendship.

Ilmurray (discuss • contribs) 16:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Tethered self (Iana)
I will add more later, but also feel free to add if you find anything relevant

One of the concepts Sherry Turkle devised in relation to always-on culture is the notion of the ‘tethered self’. In her article ‘Always-on/Always-on-you: The Tethered Self’, Turkle describes the tethered self as a state in which we are constantly connected, or tethered, to our devices and the people we communicate with through them. Technology has created a space in which we can live in both the online and offline world. Our activities may not be centred around the Internet, but there is the assumption that we are still connected to the network and are available for contact. Turkle describes how the tethered self has manifested in the offline world – she met with young people who exhibited the behaviours of people tethered to the Internet. These young people talked about situations in which they were waiting for a notification to appear on their phone, even putting their safety on the line for a connection, such as checking their phones while driving or getting into accidents while walking. Turkle explained: “These young people live in a state of waiting for connection”. The idea of the tethered self suggests that people are starting to prioritise online connections over real physical interactions. This is evident from situations in which we, or someone else, will cut off a conversation to answer a phone call or check a notification. Turkle describes one of these situations in her book ‘Alone Together: Why We Expect More From Technology and Less from Each Other’:

“I interrupt a call even if the new call says ‘unknown’ as an identifier – I just have to know who it is. So I’ll cut off a friend for an ‘unknown. I need to know who wanted to connect…And if I hear my phone, I have to answer it. I don’t have a choice. I have to know who it is, what they are calling for”.

This would suggest that because we value online connections over those in the real world, they are more ‘real’. Sherry Turkle explains that our lives are different on the network, and there is a difference between “what is true and what is “true here,” true in simulation.” Digital connections are divided by a screen and a physical distance; these connections eliminate the intimacy that accompanies friendships in the offline world. As Turkle explains, virtual friendships do not require the same level of commitment as those in real life.

 Tethered Self in Behaviour 

Virtual friendships require less commitment because we only pay partial attention to the conversation at hand. Our attention is always divided: for example, while we pay attention to someone offline, we are constantly aware that our devices may receive a notification or a call, and so, we never give our full attention. Our attention may also be split to multiple interactions online, therefore, there is an artificiality to digital connections as they lack the attention and intimacy that friendships require. They also require less commitment because they are conditioned with the expectation that these friendships are disposable. If you don’t agree with someone, you can block them. There is also the phenomenon of “ghosting”: the act of ending a relationship by withdrawing all mobile communication without explanation. Ending a friendship online does not require the same level of confrontation as it does offline. The rules of connection are different on online platforms and therefore, it suggests an ‘easier’ form of friendship that is not mirrored in real life.

Furthermore, on social media users tend to present the best versions of themselves or the person that they want to be. Online identity is performative; social media is intended to be used to share our lives, but we predominately use it to project the events in our day that we assume people will like. This builds the foundation for online connections that are not based on reality.

Ilmurray (discuss • contribs) 17:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Additionally, online companionships tend to be defined by dependency. Through social media, one will communicate their feelings and look to others to validate those feelings. This in turn becomes a desire for continual validation – as Turkle explains, “I have a feeling/Get me a friend” becomes “I want to have a feeling/Get me a friend”. As we are constantly tethered to our devices, we are never truly alone. This eliminates the opportunity for self-reflection that is important for developing a sense of self.

Furthermore, the way we communicate online indicates the idea of an “illusion of friendship”. Virtual conversations are defined by a kind of shorthand – we will speak in short phrases or emoticons that quickly communicate what one is feeling. These conversations lack the complexity of genuine conversation; they create a compacted version of friendship.

Ilmurray (discuss • contribs) 17:15, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Levels of friendships (Categorization of social relationships)- * Goffman's Theoretical concept of framing (Celine)
In the digital world, relationships are constantly being created, developed and sustained through various online and offline interactions. In particular, individuals use social media to connect with one another. For example, people use Facebook to connect with colleagues, friends, and family. However, the term ‘Facebook friends’ refers to acquaintances with whom one is only in contact through social media. (pp.102) The term carries the implication that ‘friendship’ of such a kind, even under the label ‘friend’, is a lower category of friendship than ‘real friends’. This shows that social media platforms including Facebook allow individuals to create friends but those ‘friends’ can be organized into categories based on their closeness. As Miller argues in How the World Changed Social Media: Online and offline relationships “for a good friend social media is likely to help cultivate and enhance that friendship, whereas, if there is no bonding in the first place, being friends on Facebook may make little or no difference” (pp.103) Meaning that people can connect with complete strangers but they will still question their level of friendship with them. Within the always-on culture, people also use social media to find intimate relationships as well. Many people use dating apps and services like Tinder, Snapchat and Bumble to connect with potential partners instead of having a real face to face conversation. Overall, social media accounts offer the illusion of companionship without the demands of friendships.

Celine Hunt (discuss • contribs) 15:45, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Celine Hunt (discuss • contribs) 16:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Celine Hunt (discuss • contribs) 17:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Infoglut (Summer)
Infoglut: Mark Andrejevic On any given day, we are exposed to an unimaginable amount of information. This can range from the physical environment around us, how we are feeling (emotional intellect), and not to mention the never-ending amount of information that can be found online. How do we deal with all of this infoglut? ‘Infoglut’ is a term used by Mark Andrejevic, meaning “an unimaginably unmanageable amount of information is available to anyone with Internet access” (pp. 2). We do not have to go in search of the information that is at our disposal online, it comes to us. We see it through television, news, Tweets, texts, blogs, etc.

The overwhelming amount of information might not be a bad thing. Andrejevic mentions in his book how the Internet has made an “unprecedented amount of information available to a growing population of the populace, while also providing it with access to content creation and distribution tools” (pp. 2). People can choose to be an active participant in the information and contribute to it.

It can be overwhelming to people to have all of this information thrown at them. How do people make sense of it all, and how do they choose what is relevant to them? They could make the conscious decision to back away from social media and other digital connections. However, by doing this, the risk their online ‘relationships’ and step away from the Always-On culture. The infoglut only enables and encourages the Always-On culture because there is so much information to be a part of. Summer.schnellbach (discuss • contribs) 11:05, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Andrejevic, M. (2013). Introduction: Infoglut and Clutter-Clearing. In Infoglut: How Too Much Information Is Changing the Way We Think and Know (pp. 1-19). New York, NY: Routledge. Retrieved March 22, 2018. https://www.vlebooks.com/vleweb/Product/Index/310678?page=0
 * Summer.schnellbach (discuss • contribs) 16:37, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Information Overload / cognitive surplus (All)
Unfortunately we do not have space for this section in the essay due to the word limit, but we can still insert any research into this section of the discussion page. Vw428 (discuss • contribs) 22:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Notes on Clay Shirky's Video
 * Kenya, 2007, disputed presidential election
 * Too much information to keep up with
 * Programmers introduced Ushahidi
 * Crisis mapping was born

"Cognitive surplus represents the ability of the world's population to volunteer and to contribute and collaborate on large, sometimes gloabl projects."

Critical difference between LOLcats and Ushahidi
 * LOLcats is communal value. Value created by the participants for each other.
 * Ushahdidi is civic value. Value created by the participants but enjoyed by society as a whole

Summarizing Clay Shirky's Video

Two aspects of cognitive surplus:
 * 1) we do have alot of spare time but we spend alot of time consuming rather than creating
 * 2) if only we could collaborate together, our actions would amount to much more

Lessons From Cognitive Surplus Vw428 (discuss • contribs) 22:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * People generally want to do something to make the world a better place
 * Contrary to popular thought, people will help when they are invited to
 * Access to cheap, flexible tools removes barriers to participation and creativity - recent innovations
 * Simple tools are often enough to harness cognitive surplus
 * "Once you've figured out how to tap the surplus in a way that people care about, others can replicate your techniques over and over, around the world." (Shirky, 2010:17)
 * E.g. Wikipedia, Ushahidi.com, Linux

Convergence - * getting information/notifications right away (All)
Unfortunately we do not have space for this section in the essay due to the word limit, but we can still insert any research into this section of the discussion page. Vw428 (discuss • contribs) 22:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Notes on Henry Jenkins - 'Convergence Culture: Where Old & New Media Collide' (pp.1-24) This book is about the relationship between 3 concepts:
 * 1) Media convergence
 * 2) Participatory culture
 * 3) Collective intelligence


 * Convergence: meaning the flow of content across multiple media platforms, cooperation between multiple media industries and the migratory behaviour of media audiences who will go almost anywhere in search of entertainment
 * "Grassroots" = a movement which uses the people in a given district as the basis for a political or economic movement.
 * Participatory culture, contrasts with older notions of passive media spectatorship. Rather than talking about media producers and consumers as occupying seperate roles, we might now see them as participants who ionteract with each other according to a new set of rules thath none of us full understands.
 * Convergence does not occur through media appliances - convergence occurs within ithe brains of the individual consumers and through their social interactions with others.

Media = information to talk about = conversation creates "buzz" = valued by media industry

New Orleans Media Conference c.2000
 * Sony vs Microsoft game consoles panel
 * Core challenge expand cheap & available technology
 * Had the technology to bring about convergence, but hadn't figure out why anyone would want it.
 * Not a large turn out and members of the public were ill-informed

Film-makers Panel
 * Wanted to use games to explore idea that couldn't fit within 2 hour films.
 * The relationship between movies and games hard concept to sustain
 * Time span for developments and distribution radically different

Monetizing Music Panel
 * This was the panel where most members of the public attended
 * There was confusion over where the revenue would come from if the music industry were to become digitalised

The Overall Messages taken from New Orleans Media Experience Vw428 (discuss • contribs) 22:50, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Convergence is coming
 * 2) Convergence is harder than it sounds
 * 3) Everyone will survive if everyone works together

Disconnectivity (Hesselberth) (Vaila)
''Going to go back to add more and clean up. Feel free to make suggestions''

Facebook currently has over 2.13 billion users across the globe, and this number is growing every day. This is just one example of a social media platform that appears to never fail in growing larger each year. However, even in the always-on culture we live in today, it is becoming more common recently for users to disconnect from their profiles or take a break from social media, and other digital connections.

Pepita Hesselberth goes into depth on the issues surrounding the “right to disconnect”, introducing the article with the proposed ban in Germany on the use of work related communicative devices outside of work at two leading car manufacturing companies: Volkswagen and BMW. The author highlights three key concerns in the discussion relating to:
 * 1) digital labour
 * 2) the unease of the concept of an always-on culture, and
 * 3) the need to disconnect (2017, p.2)

Hesselberth explains in the article how although these concerns have been looked at individually, there is little research into how all three inter-relate. Digital labour can be a reason people opt to disconnect from digital conections. Christian Fuchs is one academic who is highly concerned with the idea of “playbour”, the concept of users of the internet working for free whenever they use the internet. Fuchs argues the point that because we live in an always-on culture, the “factory” is not just limited to the home and workplace, but “[…] the factory and workplace surveillance are also in all in-between spaces” (2014, p.118). It can be argued that for some, the idea of withholding digital relationships with others whilst carrying out “unpaid work” is immoral, and therefore digital connections are not comparable to the same levels of companionship or friendship as “real life” connections.

Types of Disconnectivity

Hesselberth goes on to explain how the concept of disconnectivity is difficult to measure, as individuals who disengage from digital connections often do so partially, i.e. removing the Facebook app from your phone but still able to access the website on a computer, or choosing not to use a mobile device but still using a laptop. As well as depending on medium specificity, it can be situational to when and where the disengagement exists, the author uses the examples of only connecting during work/not during work. Lastly disengagement can depend on the specific purpose of the digital connection, i.e. not agreeing with the morals of privacy on specific online platforms (2017, p.4).

It is also important to note that there are different extremity levels of which people can disconnect. Some people may choose to take a break, with the conscious decision to return to the digital connection after a certain amount of time; some may choose to lessen the time spent on the digital medium; and some may choose to simply refuse the digital connection (media refusal).

Media Refusal

Media refusal is described by Portwood-Stacer as “[…] a term I use to describe the practice in which people consciously choose not to engage with some media technology or platform” (2017, p.1046). However, the term is not specific to just social media, but can be applied to all forms of media. The author continues to argue on the topic of Facebook, and how media refusal can be used to send a message/make a point for other users about something they don’t agree with on/about the social networking site.

Notes on Media Refusal
 * Refusing to watch TV/not owning a TV
 * Refusing to own a mobile phone
 * Rejection of a particular media platform or brand
 * A tactic of critique, manifesting the objections towards or disatisfactions with particular medua producrs or practoces or towards consumer culture generally

Why People Disconnect

People disconnect from digital connections for a mass of different reason, some being: an attempt to disengage with any fake news circulating; disagreement with the morals of the medium i.e. the concept of data mining and surveillance within social media sites, or the concept of the platform’s business model; to use their time in a more effective way; and to attempt to improve mental wellbeing.

In the process of attempting to disconnect, or disconnecting unintentionally, from any given digital connection, “Disconnectivity Anxiety (DA)” can often be noticed. Dr Jim Taylor defines this term as “a persistent and unpleasant condition characterized by worry and unease caused by periods of technological disconnection from others”. Taylor elaborates on this term, relating the use of an always-on culture to the use of a highly addictive drug, where withdrawal symptoms can be seen when disconnection occurs - the connection itself representing the ‘drug’. The author continues and explains how being disconnected was once the standard, but nowadays it is unusual to be disconnected for a prolonged period of time. It can be argued that because of this disconnectivity anxiety, individual’s find it difficult to imagine a life without the companionship of some form of digital connection.

Disconnecting to Bring us Closer or Further Apart?

This brings us back to the original question, of whether “digital connections and the sociable robot [may] offer the illusion of companionship without the demands of friendship” (Turkle, 2011, p.1) or not and whether disconnecting brings us closer or further apart in our relationships. Vw428 (discuss • contribs) 01:00, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Internet of Things (Summer)
We are living in an ever-more connected society. We have digital connections such as social media to be active in the Always-On culture. Now, our devices are also connected to us. Our phones are able to track someone’s location or count our steps, cars can now drive themselves, and we have home audio systems such as Alexa that can turn something - such as the television - on and off at the sound of our voice.

This variety of internet-connected devices is called the Internet of Things. According to Bunz, Mercedes, and Meikle, “The internet of things describes the many uses and processes that result from giving a network address to a thing and fitting it with sensors”. This can be anything from a mobile phone to household appliances.

add images

 Tech Takeover 

To some, the idea of everyday objects being connected to a network is a frightening. What would happen if this technology were to turn on humanity and take over? This is exemplified in an episode of the TV series Mr. Robot where a woman’s internet-connected devices go out of control. She didn’t know how to turn anything off because it was all connected throughout the walls of the smart home. This is a fictional example, however, more recently there had been reports of Alexa laughing for no reason. Alexa is a smart speaker that listens for commands and then does what it is being asked. Recently, Alexa was mistaking commands, such as ‘turn off the lights’ for ‘laugh’. It would frighten owners into thinking that their technology was taking over and developing a 'mind' of its own. However, this does not mean that Alexa, or other smart devices are taking over. It is simply a reminder that this technology is still advancing and needs more work to be fully functioning properly.


 * Summer.schnellbach (discuss • contribs) 19:22, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

''' 'Smart' Companions? '''

Do these smart devices offer the illusion of companionship, as Sherry Turkle argues? Some might think of Alexa as a companion because she can listen to and perform commands. Others might think she is no more than a robot who has been programmed to respond to a user’s voice. Nonetheless, Alexa is no more than a speaker who has been programmed by humans, for humans. She is not a true companion, in that she cannot understand a human’s complex and intimate emotions. For example, she may be able to turn on our favorite song for us, but she does not know or understand why that song is our favorite like a friend in real life would.

There are many pros and cons to the Internet of Things. Justin Reich, a fellow at Harvard University’s Berkman Center for Internet & Society, addresses such effects:

“It will have widespread beneficial effects, along with widespread negative effects. There will be conveniences and privacy violations. There will be new ways for people to connect, as well as new pathways towards isolation, misanthropy, and depression. I’m not sure that moving computers from people’s pockets (smartphones) to people’s hands or face will have the same level of impact that the smartphone has had, but things will trend in the similar direction. Everything that you love and hate about smartphones will be more so.” laugh’.

The Internet of Things is still a developing area of interest. As it evolves, we may see more technological advances to human interaction and communication, or our face-to-face communication will continue to dissolve. Summer.schnellbach (discuss • contribs) 19:27, 26 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Summer.schnellbach (discuss • contribs) 14:06, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Summer.schnellbach (discuss • contribs) 16:34, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Sociable Robot (Summer)
Another advancement in the Internet of Things is the 'sociable' robot. Robots have become some sort of replacement for humans and human interactions and intimacy. Sherry Turkle says “As sociable robots propose themselves as substitutes for people, new networked devices offer us machine-mediated relationships with each other, another kind of substitution.” Robots allow people to feel like they are in control. It is easy to have a companionship with a robot without having the demands of friendship. A person can talk to a robot as if it is a friend, but just as easily set it aside when they get bored or uninterested.

''' Robots as Companions? '''

Robots are a perfect example to address Turkle's notion that digital connections offer only the illusion of friendship. She addresses this in her book, Alone Together, "We don’t seem to care what these artificial intelligences “know” or “understand” of the human moments we might “share” with them.” Human beings have a desire to feel wanted and needed, and when we don't get these desires fulfilled by another human, we reach out to technology. This can be by creating an avatar to live in a virtual world, seeking validation through online connections such as social media, or turning to robots to get the feelings of companionship.

There has been increasing discussion of robots becoming suitable romantic partners. However, skeptics such as Sherry Turkle disagree with the notion that robots can provide true love and an authentic relationship with a human. “A love relationship involves coming to savor the surprises and the rough patches of looking at the world from another’s point of view, shaped by history, biology, trauma, and joy. Computers and robots do not have these experiences to share.” Robots might be able to provide a shallow illusion of companionship, but they are not able to provide a true relationship that is only available from another human being who has shared similar life experiences.

 Robots as Companions for the Elderly 

Creating robots that mimic the nurturing companionship of a nurse for the elderly in nursing homes is undergoing research. Many elderly people in nursing homes only share the company of part-time nurses and/or other residents. For some elderly residents, robot companions could be very beneficial to their health and well-being. Although robots are not able to -or at least not yet able to- provide the same care as nurses, they are able to provide comfort, much like an emotional support animal.

There are doubts as well about robots providing companionship to the elderly. Metzler, Lewis, and Pope and others address this doubt in their essay Could robots become authentic companions in nursing care? They question whether robots could replace nurses as both companions and caretakers. "If the intended role for these artefacts is to perform nursing assistive tasks and furnish companionship, then might some human nurses not wonder whether the ultimate purpose of the machines really is to assist or to replace?"

More research is needed in the area of robots being suitable companions for the elderly in nursing homes. It can be argued both ways as to whether or not they can be companions capable of providing emotional, mental, and physical support. While robots can provide companionship to the elderly, it is still only an illusion of real friendship.
 * Summer.schnellbach (discuss • contribs) 22:55, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

INSTRUCTOR FEEDBACK
General Feedback
 * Essays of this standard attain the following grade descriptor for the collaborative essay. Whereas not all of the elements here will be directly relevant to your particular response to the brief, this will give you a clearer idea of how the grade you have been given relates to the standards and quality expected of work at this level. It is worth noting that you have *just* attained this grade level, but it is a recognition of some very good work and potential for the future – well done!:


 * Excellent. Among other things, this work will probably demonstrate a complex, critical understanding of the themes of the module. It will communicate very effectively, making excellent and creative use of the possibilities of the form (including links, as well as perhaps copyright-free videos and images, linked to from Wiki Commons), and may be written with some skill and flair. It will make insightful connections between original examples and relevant concepts. It will be informed by serious reading and reflection, is likely to demonstrate originality of thought, and will probably be rewarding and informative for the reader. The wiki markup formatting will be impeccable.

Specific Feedback:


 * You have submitted a very well written response to the brief. Here you outline a number of arguments that specifically address the theme of always-on culture, specifically in relation to the social dimensions of media engagement. and/however your discussion of the research evidences a good working knowledge of a wide range of scholarship on your chosen topic. The research question that you have chosen to discuss your theme is exceptionally well chosen because you have identified both important research in the subject area, and also a topic that absolutely gets at the heart of everyday experiences with always-on forms. I think a little more detail in the disconnectivity section, just to link those different approaches and ideas together would have helped (a little overreliance on lecture materials here perhaps, but the application of these is sound). I love the final section on sociality tech. Very novel, and certainly something that could be developed in a number of directions in a larger project or dissertation.


 * The essay is written in a fluid, mature academic style, and your argument is very well structured, outlining several related themes in a well-rounded discussion. This work is critically engaged, and you have demonstrated awareness of the contradictions inherent in the theme itself, as well as some of the problems in identifying and developing the underlying issues. Some good use of the platform’s affordances – more embedded links/interwiki links to other pages would have been useful, but that’s a quibble. This is really good work.


 * N.B.:Feedback for your Discussion, engagement and contribs elements for the assessment will be given on your individual User Discussion Pages. Grades for all work will communicated confidentially via Canvas.’’’

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 11:49, 23 April 2018 (UTC)