Talk:Digital Media and Culture Yearbook 2014/Chapter 3: Always-on Culture

Also, congrats everybody on a great, collaborative product! I'm proud of what we've accomplished in two weeks! RedheadRachel (discuss • contribs) 16:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Dotting the t's and crossing the i's
Hey, now more than ever I just wanted to suggest cleaning up what we've already got. We have a ton of great info already, and I feel we've more than covered the appropriate areas, and rather than just throwing in more bits and bobs I'd say perfecting what we do should be a priority. Generally just bringing formatting and such in line throughout the page, correcting any spelling or grammar errors, really just polishing what we've got till it's good an' shiny and professional! Hope that's not a problem George? ;D Flailkerrin (discuss • contribs) 15:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I think its a good idea just to clean things up a bit because we have loads of information and I think we have covered pretty much everything. Adding some pictures is a good touch and maybe linking things to other pages ect. And also making sure all the grammar and spelling is correct. Do we have until the end of the day to do all of this yeah? Heyrach (discuss • contribs) 16:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't know, timewise. I just know that Kelly.marvel and I have been doing some serious polishing/editing for consistency (like the 'always-on' stuff) as well as for content. If you others are confident in your formatting skills (I'm not so confident in mine), have at it! RedheadRachel (discuss • contribs) 16:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello there guys! Has anyone else been having some serious trouble with editing conflicts preventing them posting things to the Wikibook? The past few times I've tried to add or edit it just won't let me and my text just disappears. I don't know it's just me are not... From now on I'm writing stuff on word like Greg suggested before,but it's been infuriating! How have other people been finding it? LittleBlondeLottie (discuss • contribs)

Hi Lottie, don't know if this will be too late but when an editing conflict occurs you just need to click back the page to get your work back. Then just copy and paste it into the new version. GemmaMiller (discuss • contribs) 16:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey guys. I was wondering if we should include sub headings within the Main concepts section for each concept ? Was thinking it would be a good way to organize the different concepts? What do you guys think ? (Kaf00023 (discuss • contribs) 22:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC))

Hey. I agree, I think having subheadings will make the page look more organised and professional. I think that we should start with a detailed description of the actual idea of Always-On Culture and then move on to Turkle and Boyd's ideas, each under their own subheading. What does everyone think? Also, is there something obvious I have missed? KathrynHairUpAndGlasses (discuss • contribs) 15:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Should we change the main concepts to be more a section for each thinker than each concepts, or just add each of the main thinkers at the end or start of the section ? (Kaf00023 (discuss • contribs) 22:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC))

Hi guys. I wanted to put in something about the fact that teenagers are more associated with "always-on culture" than any other group of people. Any suggestions of where, under which sub-heading, I should put it? Thanks! KathrynHairUpAndGlasses (discuss • contribs) 13:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

'reduced context cues' why the double bold here and not elsewhere? Try to be consistent with formatting :o) GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 15:07, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about the double bold on social context cues it was a mistake on my part when making the sub heading and i didn't notice the error till today, however I've fixed it now and will check more carefully next time. As for teenagers being more associated with 'always on culture' you could work it into the idea of being part of a network as they would presumably be the largest part of said network and the implications of that ? (Kaf00023 (discuss • contribs) 22:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC))

We should be sure to remain consistent with danah boyd's name. Some people are capitalising it when she is known for having it in lower case (even her Wikipedia page has it in lower case). (If anyone is dead against lower case just say here so everyone knows to put it like that). Thanks! SiobhanDMC (discuss • contribs) 16:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Should we capitalize boyd's name when it is in the beginning of the sentence? --Kelly.marvel (discuss • contribs) 17:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Good idea about putting the idea about teenagers being more associated with always on in the networking section. Thanks. I think if her name is lower case even on her Wikipedia page that we should keep it lower case throughout. KathrynHairUpAndGlasses (discuss • contribs) 18:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I've noticed that there are several different ways that we are saying "Always-On Culture". Some have upper and lower case, some all upper case, some all lower case and some are in and some are out of quotations. I think they should all be the same, with perhaps the exception of the first time it should be in upper case. Do you think it should have "" quotations or ''? KathrynHairUpAndGlasses (discuss • contribs) 18:33, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree Kathryn that we need to be a bit more consistent in the formatting of the words "Always On Culture". In the module handbook and all our other course material the topic is refered to as 'Always On' Culture - with the culture aspect being titled as 'Always On' not an entire clause phrase and capitalising the C in 'Culture'. I hope that's helpful, what do others think? LittleBlondeLottie (discuss • contribs)

I think we should go with what the handbook says. Also, are we putting the references in alphabetical order? Do you think it would look better or do you think they should be in line with where they are in the text? As in, if the reference comes first in the text should it come first in the reference list? KathrynHairUpAndGlasses (discuss • contribs) 19:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the references - alphabetical will probably look better but the majority of Wiki pages/books have them in the order they are references in SiobhanDMC (discuss • contribs) 19:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I think we need to link our references to where they are located in the text. Also, the citations in the text are not all formatted in the same way. --Kelly.marvel (discuss • contribs) 14:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey guys I had a thought about smart mobs after today's lecture. More the fact that in order to fully function, and effectively act out 'spontaneous' action, the mob has to be always on i.e. in order to quickly muster for a project with a deadline (us) or for like a protest (like what happened in Eygpt). Anyone think its relevant enough to add in? Just to reference another chapter? RobboAdare13 (discuss • contribs) 15:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh yeh, just clocked the online identity page... They have a hell of a lot more content than us haha. We might have to do more reading, if there is anymore stuff to read about this! RobboAdare13 (discuss • contribs) 16:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

In Turkle's work on the 'tethered self' she tied in a lot of other topics such as "connections that matter" and "new forms of validation." I think it would be useful to add in subheadings under the 'tethered self' discussing these topics as well. Some content that we can include is a portion about the positive and negative aspects of being 'always on.' --Kelly.marvel (discuss • contribs) 16:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

If we do add a section related to the up and downsides to always being connected, one of the downsides could be the concept of "Disconnectivity Anxiety" --Kelly.marvel (discuss • contribs) 16:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the idea of putting in the section of smart mobs is a really good idea! That way, like you said, we have linked in to other topics. Do you think it should be under it's own heading or a sub-heading of something else? KathrynHairUpAndGlasses (discuss • contribs) 17:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I've added some more information to the introduction, so that it has a bit more depth. However, I do not think that the introduction should be too long. KathrynHairUpAndGlasses (discuss • contribs) 18:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I just wanted to say, I was going to link one of my paragraphs to the page on Online Identity. I saw that someone had put in a link to Shirley Turkle's wiki page and like the idea it all being interlinked. KathrynHairUpAndGlasses (discuss • contribs) 18:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Didn't we agree to have boyd's name lowercase throughout the chapter? Should I change it back? --Kelly.marvel (discuss • contribs) 18:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that if it is lower case on her wiki page then we should have it in ours. KathrynHairUpAndGlasses (discuss • contribs) 19:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, in regards to the referencing, do you think we should put in footnotes? I think that might look better and that way, the references will be in order. KathrynHairUpAndGlasses (discuss • contribs) 19:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I think footnotes are a good idea. The idea of smart mobs could be included as an advantage to "always-on" --Kelly.marvel (discuss • contribs) 20:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I think we should definitely include the section on disconnectivity anxiety, it's not something that was covered in the lectures so I think it would be a good thing to research and add.

Katrinamcaleer (discuss • contribs) 20:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I added advantage and disadvantage sections. Let me know if you guys like that layout or would like the content to be rearranged. --Kelly.marvel (discuss • contribs) 20:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

In terms of layout I think that looks great. Do you think I should just put my section about privacy under disadvantages? Katrinamcaleer (discuss • contribs) 08:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey everyone, I just moved my content about theorists Sherry Turkle and Leslie Perlow into the main section. Some parts are repeated about Sherry Turkle as I am yet to edit it. Feel free to edit and change information I have added. Amandajayner (discuss • contribs) 10:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi - that's my stuff about "Being 'On': the different means of getting connected" moved over to the main page too - edit it as you want! I'll have a go at trying to put the increasing number of references into alphabetical order so that our collective page is a bit closer to "ready" for Friday night.George Berrie (discuss • contribs) 10:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey George... just saw your additions to the main page! Looking good! However, I was wondering if that should maybe be moved down under the other main topics. I'm just opening that point up for potential discussion as it's still relevant but I think the book should start off with more about "Always On" itself. Readers who don't know what "Always On" is might need more information up front. Thoughts everybody? RedheadRachel (discuss • contribs) 12:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm just coming onto the discussion page after a break so I'm still getting caught up, forgive me! Another thought I had while looking at the page that we've talked about but haven't put up yet is the younger gen/workplace differences in an "Always On" culture. I know in our 4KR group disc page we talked about this... here's a link! I was going to include that section and have some information but if someone else is already on top of it, I am willing to add my sources and findings to the pot! RedheadRachel (discuss • contribs) 12:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey Rachel, I have been working on a paragraph about the younger generations but not yet about the effects of always on in the workplace. When I am finished I will post it on our discussion page and we can discuss or add anything else you wanted to include. KathrynHairUpAndGlasses (discuss • contribs) 12:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the "Being 'On': the different means of getting connected" is really well done, but should be moved to its own subheading instead of falling under Main Concepts. --Kelly.marvel (discuss • contribs) 12:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the lay-out of the page looks really good! And I think all of the sections are in relevant places and that there is a nice flow of information. What does everyone else think? KathrynHairUpAndGlasses (discuss • contribs) 12:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey guys, I found a book by Naomi Baron called "Always On: Language in an Online and Mobile World" dont think this has been mentioned yet so do you guys think it would be a good idea to put her under key theorists?? This book seems pretty relevant and I should be able to write quite a bit on it. Also can we quote things from our sources or have we just to paraphrase?? Thanks for any help Heyrach (discuss • contribs) 12:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it's a really good idea to put that in! I think the more outside sources we have and information that wasn't in the lecture, the better it will be. KathrynHairUpAndGlasses (discuss • contribs) 13:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey guys. I just wanted to let you know that I have put a link in one of my paragraphs which will direct you to the page on Online Identity. I thought it was a good idea as it was relevant and I also think that it is helpful to have the pages linked together, as all the topics are intertwined. KathrynHairUpAndGlasses (discuss • contribs) 13:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, do you think that where I have put the "Connected Young" paragraph makes sense? Do you think it fits in there or do you think it should be elsewhere? I just thought that it was relevant in terms of moving on to the idea of changing attitudes. Thanks! KathrynHairUpAndGlasses (discuss • contribs) 13:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I was going to add stuff to the advantages of always on although i am finding it hard to find things to back up what I think tha advatages are. Are we allowed to write advantages with having quotes from books? I thought a couple of advantages would be like 1. The idea of being always on means we are connected to the world 24/7 which means as soon as anything happens we can find out about it and we live in a world where everyone needs information fast which would then lead on the a second point 2. Information is so fast and always so available that being always on saves us a lot of time having when retrieving information 3. Always having such powerful technology at our finger tips is such a huge step in the technology world that it should always be a tool to help us rather than to put us at a disadvantage as it was designed to improve our lives and keep us connected. These are just some rough idea I had, if anyone has any sources that would back up my ideas and if you think they are good ideas we could maybe work on them together and come up with a couple of paragraphs. Thanks Heyrach (discuss • contribs) 13:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I have a few internet sources that might help you. One of them is a pretty long survey but I think it has a lot of good information. I can send them to you on you're own discussion page if you want? KathrynHairUpAndGlasses (discuss • contribs) 13:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey Kathryn, yeah that would be great thanks. I will use them and put it up and then if you have any thoughts feel free to edit my paragraphs Heyrach (discuss • contribs) 13:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

No problem. I hope they help! KathrynHairUpAndGlasses (discuss • contribs) 13:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Should we change the citations in the text? --Kelly.marvel (discuss • contribs) 15:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

A lot of content has been added today, some of it is really solid. I was going to suggest the link to online identity, as that makes more sense than doubling up on semi-relevant information here. I'd say go ahead and add to the advantages of Always-On, as it feels rather bare without. We can then try and find academic work to back it up, however if we can't find it we can scrap it later if need be. I think we really need to be careful with not putting in information just for the sake of information. There is a whole ton of description of ethernet cables and the like that has no place here and just cluttters up the page. These could instead be replaced with links to information if need be, but either way, we need to cut out a lot of it. Flailkerrin (discuss • contribs) 16:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi guys - re Rachel and Kelly's input re the order of 'Being On' etc. I agree and have moved this down to the bottom of the list and changed 'Being' to 'Always' (no idea why I didn't do that in the first place!). Also, what are your thoughts about putting a Contributions section right at the bottom? We've got four teams (!) collaborating on this topic now and the Crowdsourcing guys have put a Contributions section at the bottom of their page.George Berrie (discuss • contribs) 17:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm okay with putting a contributions section at the bottom, but I do not think it is necessary. Are there any other topics that you guys think we should expand on? --Kelly.marvel (discuss • contribs) 17:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi guys, I'm working on the online identity page of the wikibook and I was wondering if it would be alright if i could link to your page? I'm looking into how the use of multiple online social network accounts leads into the ubiquity of peoples presence online, I thought it wold tie quite nicely into your own ubiquity section. please feel free to reference any of our page for your own work. Shayman1 (discuss • contribs) 17:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it's a great idea for our pages to be linked since each of our topics are related in different ways --Kelly.marvel (discuss • contribs) 18:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Alright, seeing as there's now a huge section on the pros & cons of this theory should I take my little bits on the pros & cons (in the 'part of the network section) out now? Or are they still valid where they are? RobboAdare13 (discuss • contribs) 19:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that we need to be careful that we aren't just posting information for the sake of it. Our book needs to be full but it also needs to be full of relevant information. Has anyone found any sources that relate to privacy in always on culture? I could only find a little bit from danah boyd who was talking about privacy being enhanced through always on culture. Any links or books would be useful! Thanks. Katrinamcaleer (discuss • contribs) 19:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Wow, the amount of work done to the page since I looked at it last 9 hours ago, it's black and white! Such an improvement guys! The page has more flow and so much information! Just looking over the page, I was wondering if anyone had any creative editing tricks to break up some of the longer paragraphs. For example, "Tethering" and "Part of the Network" contain great information but appears as a big block of text that I was tempted to skim rather than read. I'm reaching out to you guys because I'm not sure that I am familiar enough with wikibooks to do it! Any clever ideas? RedheadRachel (discuss • contribs) 21:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

User:KathrynHairUpAndGlasses, I saw that you added some stuff to the draft I had on my user page, do you mind if I go ahead and start the bit for the workforce? I'll put it up and add what you've come up with! I'm also jumping in on this a bit late but I like adding Naomi Baron to the theorists list because I actually included quite a bit from her book in my draft and thought it was a good source! RedheadRachel (discuss • contribs) 21:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd be lying if I said I'm any good with editing tips or tricks. I did find an article about 72 hour work weeks and always on culture, not sure if you've already come across it but here it is just incase it helps! http://blogs.hbr.org/2013/09/welcome-to-the-72-hour-work-we/ Katrinamcaleer (discuss • contribs) 21:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

hey guys, I wrote a bit about newspapers but I dont know if it is any good and maybe even too opinionated?? Would be great if someone wanted to go through it and make sure they think its ok and maybe add their own stuff?? Thanks Heyrach (discuss • contribs) 21:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it! Some of the sources I've read include non-technological media as a problem in an "Always On" culture. I wouldn't take it down but I'll look and see what I can add/change! RedheadRachel (discuss • contribs) 22:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

If I'm being completely honest I do think it sounds a bit too opinionated! It is good though. I'll have a search for some relevant sources related to newspapers just now and I'll add to it if I find anything good. Katrinamcaleer (discuss • contribs) 22:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

First off, I'm eternally sorry for completely spacing on the fact that the pages themselves have a discussion section. Can very much understand if this has caused irritation when I've edited things without warning or explanation. Way to do the whole 'civility' thing, me... Anyway; something I'm thinking is that at points the information seems rather jumbled? For instance; in the 'tethering' section, the second paragraph seems to be out of place when considering that the third explains that we are 'tethered' to our devices, when the second sounds like that concept's already been explained. Not too much of a major issue, but would be nice to tidy up shop, I guess? --IsmayH (discuss • contribs) 22:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

No it's totally alright! I had no idea until seminar that our page had its own discussion page. Here I had been doing everything on my user page. Oh well. Before i jump into my comment, I do agree that we just need a pair of eyes or two to comb through the book for clarity, consistency, and flow. I'll do a sweep once I put my paragraphs in. Anyone else?

Also, I have a section that relates to the "Connected Young" section; however, the information I have doesn't really belong under the disadvantages heading. Does anyone object if we make Young/Workplace its own subheading? Some of the existing information in Connected Young isn't necessarily negatives. I don't deny that it does pose a problem that we can't keep some of the information in the disadvantages category but a good point of "Always On" is how it directly affects youth and those in the workplace. Thoughts? RedheadRachel (discuss • contribs) 23:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it would depend on how much information was there? Simply because there isn't all that much of the 'connected young' section so far in the disadvantages? Even if the last line doesn't sound too much like a negative? (Maybe that would be a better quote for elsewhere? I added a section to the end of 'part of the network' from a case study I found about the rates of depression going up when people experience 'internet stress'. It's not so very long, so I was wondering if it would be worth adding the term to the glossary? --IsmayH (discuss • contribs) 23:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Also this may just be me being persnickety, but should the 'key theorists' not come after the 'effects' section, seeing as some of them are referenced in the effects section? --IsmayH (discuss • contribs) 23:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey, was just thinking the page was pretty intimidating with the sheer amount of block text there is, so it'd be good to add some pictures to break things up, like we did on the blog assignments. It'll also help to differentiate between theorists at a glance, making it easier when scrolling. Cir00004 (discuss • contribs) 23:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I think pictures are a good way to break up the text so if you see an opportunity to add them then I would --Kelly.marvel (discuss • contribs) 10:35, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the first paragraph under the "tethering" section is relevant to our chapter. What do you guys think? --Kelly.marvel (discuss • contribs) 10:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Just noticed that we have still been using various forms of 'always on' and I think we need to pick a definite way to use it espcially since it's the title our chapter. Does anyone have any preferences for which way we write it?

I think we don't need the first paragraph in 'tethering' if we add it to the glossary (I know we have one on the 'tethered self' but maybe just put in what the term itself means?) As for the 'always on' bit, I too have been irked by this! The title of our chapter seems to suggest that 'always-on' is the best way to go? (with the dash and without capitalization.) --IsmayH (discuss • contribs) 11:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, should we split the 'advantages' section into further subsections? simply because it's a wall of text right now whereas the disadvantages is all broken up. --IsmayH (discuss • contribs) 11:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with using 'always-on', should I go through and make the changes now or wait until tomorrow when people are done adding and altering content? I think it's a good idea to add that paragraph of "tethering" to the glossary because it seems unnecessary in the section. --Kelly.marvel (discuss • contribs) 11:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Can't hurt to start changing it into 'always-on' now. If people slip up later we can do it then as well. As for tethering, I'll copy and paste that to the glossary now. --IsmayH (discuss • contribs) 11:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I'll start that now. Also, is there a reason for the quotations in the "Part of 'The Network'" section being italicized and separated from the rest of the text? This is the only section with this type of formatting. --Kelly.marvel (discuss • contribs) 11:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

No reason so far as I can tell. --IsmayH (discuss • contribs) 11:35, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi everyone, just a couple of little things: There is a section "Change in the Workforce" under disadvantages of "Always-on" with no content under it. Is someone still to add there? Also, is there a reason for danah boyd's name to be capitalised for the link to her wiki page? Sorry if this has already been discussed, I'm finding it hard wading through all these comments. GemmaMiller (discuss • contribs) 12:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I just added headings to the advantages section to break it up as was discussed here. Does everyone think it looks okay? Could I also maybe suggest having some titles underlined to make the page more readable? It seems to be just a collection of slightly different sized fonts and sometimes proves difficult to separate sections when reading. Regarding the term "disinhibition", it is referred to as "dis-inhibition" on the main page as if someone has just corrected it to Google's spell checker, but did Greg not say it wasn't a word anyway? I'm sure it is referred to without the hyphen in the lecture notes. Should we change it? GemmaMiller (discuss • contribs) 12:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

To whoever wrote the section on cognitive surplus, I added in a few bits and bobs about that and 'smart mobs'. It's a little bit head-scratching at first, the example of the Taliban mainly, but I thought it was relevant + an interesting perspective. Have a read and let me if I should change anything. Plus (in general) I added in a section about privacy, which I thought was very interesting if anyone wants to add to it. RobboAdare13 (discuss • contribs) 12:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Rob, that would be me. I'm glad you added to it as it felt like it needed bulked up. Thanks very much, great stuff! Regarding the privacy section - I totally agree that this should be here. Someone mentions in the Intro and later on that this is perhaps the most important issue, yet not a lot has been written about it. GemmaMiller (discuss • contribs) 16:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

ATTENTION ALWAYS ON CULTURE. I'm sure you guys are all over your topic. I just thought to pass on a link to an interesting video that discusses your thesis colloquially and could be useful for your group presentations. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZwJq88cWKY Hope it is useful! Keep up the good work! Page is looking impressive! Kriscampbell91 (discuss • contribs) 13:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much for passing that along! RedheadRachel (discuss • contribs) 14:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, I'm our page has so much content already that I don't necessarily need to add another new idea so, for now, I'm combing through the current page, looking for consistency and flow. Sound okay? I already fixed some of the "always-on" that we had previously missed. Also, can I take off your contrib records? Other pages don't include the contribs in the actual text. It will still be obvious for a person going to look for your work (i.e. Greg) via page history/user history. Does anyone have a problem with this? Point number two, I'm going to add to the change in the workforce section as I just found a new source! RedheadRachel (discuss • contribs) 14:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey Rachel, I understand the whole contribs thing, I thought I had edited them all out. It's hard to sift through all the content on the page but I'll use search and replace and do that just now. What way are we deciding to write "always-on" <<Like this for all sections? Is there anything we can afford to lose as we seem to have so much information which may not be entirely necessary and difficult to navigate. GemmaMiller (discuss • contribs) 15:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I think to make the chapter flow better we should move "'Always-On': The Different Means of Getting Connected" and "Participants in an "always-on culture" to be the first main concepts to introduce firstly who participates and how we can be "always-on". It makes more sense to start here instead of going straight into "Tethering". What does everyone think? GemmaMiller (discuss • contribs) 16:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with that move! And as to the 'always-on'... <--- that's how we're doing it! 'always-on' culture if you need it all! RedheadRachel (discuss • contribs) 17:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Rob, in reference to you adding the section on privacy. I found a quote from danah boyd on privacy but ironically she's arguing that social media gives you more real life privacy. I wanted to add it but I'm not quite sure where to put it as her view is that it's an advantage of being always on. Any ideas? Katrinamcaleer (discuss • contribs) 17:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you Gemma. I think it would have a much nicer flow, which I think is super important. You don't want to read something that jumps all over the place! KathrynHairUpAndGlasses (discuss • contribs) 17:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey guys, under the "Toxic disinhibition," "Origins of the Internet and its Legacy," "Youth: Unplugged," "Uplugged: The study," Tethered to the Workplace," "Instant Information," "Development of Different Skills," "The Connected Young," and "Marshall McLuhan" sections there are either unclear or absent references that need to be changed from APA to match the rest of the references. If you worked on one of these sections then please change them or put the reference information here so that I can insert the reference.--Kelly.marvel (discuss • contribs) 18:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey. I noticed that the paragraph on "Youth: Unplugged" section was the same as the one I already did on the Connected Young so I have joined the two paragraphs together and put it back under the "Youth: Unplugged" heading and deleted my previous paragraph. I hope this is okay with everyone. In regards to the referencing, I will add the ones I have put in under this section now. KathrynHairUpAndGlasses (discuss • contribs) 18:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Looking good, guys! Though anyone adding something for 'Blurring between virtual and reality' under danah boyd? Looks rather strange just sitting there on its own. --IsmayH (discuss • contribs) 18:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it's all looking really good! Whoever thought about the pictures - great idea! It look much better being broken up a little. Anything else need tidying up? I'm going to have a quick read through it all now and see if anything needs doing. SiobhanDMC (discuss • contribs) 20:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

The newspaper section under convergence still needs some work. It seems slightly out of place and doesn't read like the rest of the book. I think it has to be done more in relation to always on rather than just a focus on the decline of the newspaper industry. Katrinamcaleer (discuss • contribs) 21:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Kelly - for the "Marshall McLuhan" section, the references used are


 * BBC. (2014). Facebook buys virtual reality headset start-up for $2bn. Retrieved 03/26 2014, from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26742625
 * BBC. (2014). Intel buys wearable technology firm Basis Science. Retrieved 03/26 2014, from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26743537[
 * The Guardian. (2014). Oculus: Facebook buys virtual reality gaming firm for $2bn Retrieved 25/03 2014 from, http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/mar/25/facebook-buys-virtual-reality-gaming-firm-oculus
 * The Guardian. (2014). Ray-Ban maker Luxottica to work with Google on Google Glass eyewear Retrieved 25/03 2014 from,http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/mar/25/ray-ban-maker-to-work-with-google-on-google-glass-eyewear

If you could put them into footnote form, that would be much appreciated. As people seem to agree with the change of the layout, I shall do that. GemmaMiller (discuss • contribs) 22:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to add photos or edit them, but I noticed that the McLuhan one doesn't have a title like the others. If someone could change that please? SiobhanDMC (discuss • contribs) 22:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Siobhan - I just added the caption. Wasn't sure how to do it before but I managed to work it out. Thanks for pointing that out. I've changed the layout now, if I've missed anything let me know. GemmaMiller (discuss • contribs) 22:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the references for the McLuhan section! --Kelly.marvel (discuss • contribs) 10:03, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The referencing section is super bugging me right now. Would anyone object to having the two parts divided into 'references' and 'notes' like the online identity page has done? --IsmayH (discuss • contribs) 10:36, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The problem at this stage is that everyone is still trying to add new information or expand greater on points that have already been made, but in many places it just reads badly as it's too repetitive. I'd say what we need to do now is look closely at each set ion and try and make certain parts more concise and to the point. Cir00004 (discuss • contribs) 11:36, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Gemma! It was bugging me a little. And yeah, I'm just going through the page at the moment and seeing which bits need little edits and which points are repeating themselves or need a little expansion. SiobhanDMC (discuss • contribs) 12:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

We have disinhibition in both the main concepts and definitions section. Should it just be put into one so it isn't repeating things? I can try to work it together somehow. SiobhanDMC (discuss • contribs) 13:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

After finally figuring out how to do the number reference thing, I've changed all my citations! Sorry about that. Also, I have my afternoon free so I'm comfortable with going through the page and editing. I agree that our page is unnecessarily long and if you read it top to bottom, there is more than one repetitive paragraph. I can see what I can do about that if you guys want. RedheadRachel (discuss • contribs) 14:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea because there does seem to be repetitive information. I will try to go through and edit as well. --Kelly.marvel (discuss • contribs) 14:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone think we should add more to cultural determinism? It's looking a bit thin. --Kelly.marvel (discuss • contribs) 14:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Just noticed that we have two disinhibition sections, should we combine the two or just get rid of one? --Kelly.marvel (discuss • contribs) 15:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Haha.... just had that same thought I was going to post! I think we should combine them under main concepts... thoughts? RedheadRachel (discuss • contribs) 15:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

For a stronger book chapter, I think we should lead with the main concepts. By leading with the definitions, we are introducing too many ideas too fast. Also, I'm combining the two disinhibition sections because they say nearly the same thing. RedheadRachel (discuss • contribs) 15:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I think that definitions and glossary are too similar of sections to have. Definitely combine the disinhibition sections. We might have to do that with the two determinism sections as well. --Kelly.marvel (discuss • contribs) 15:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if we should move the definitions sections (that aren't repetitive) as their own subheading under main concepts and then we can lead the main concepts section with the most relevant ideas to 'always-on'. Online disinhibition and the like is important to our topic but it's not the most important. RedheadRachel (discuss • contribs) 15:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. How should we approach the determinism sections? --Kelly.marvel (discuss • contribs) 15:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll look at those now. RedheadRachel (discuss • contribs) 15:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Referencing
FOOTNOTE HELP. Am I being silly or have I missed how to add in a footnote? Had a look around my text box but can't find. Thanks for your time JustHollie (discuss • contribs) 17:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually Just to bring it to everyone's attention we have two types of referencing going on... we will need to go through and just have one type... JustHollie (discuss • contribs) 17:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree, what type of reference should we stick with? --Kelly.marvel (discuss • contribs) 17:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I am thinking APA seen as most of it is styled with it, just means we would have to find those who have done the few parts in foot notes to change? I think it would be more difficult to footnote as we would have to go through all the references and match them up to specific numbers JustHollie (discuss • contribs) 17:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

My only concern is that footnotes look more like a Wikibook to me and less like an essay. What are your thoughts on that? If we decide to go with footnotes, I can go through and format all of them --Kelly.marvel (discuss • contribs) 18:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I think that would be ok, just if someone would help you or go over it to make sure nothing is missed or anything. It does look more like other projects. would be good to get some other people's opinion on it too but I think it sounds good. JustHollie (discuss • contribs) 18:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey thanks for pointing this out Hollie. Wiki only asks that we are consistent so that is what we should aim for. I must admit, I like Kelly's idea of making it more like a Wikibook and although many have gone for APA (us included) if Kelly is offering to format it the way she suggests then I say we go for it. I was going to ask the rest of my own team but this might take a while to get overall consensus based on how Wiki works (!) so why don't we just ask the nice Kelly to change it to a single consistent format - that way we will be in line with Wiki's standards - and if anyone has any energy left to change it to another consistent format then they can feel free to do it. How does that sound?George Berrie (discuss • contribs) 18:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey! I agree with you all concerning APA as my group chose that for referencing and I think it is the style most people have used. I personally like the idea of footnotes but I don't mind if we don't use them. Like George says, consistency is key. Amandajayner (discuss • contribs) 20:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The APA style that seems to be mostly used at the moment sounds good to me! It shoudn't be too different to change the ones that don't fit the style on Friday if need be. SiobhanDMC (discuss • contribs) 20:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

About to fix some of my referencing, so is the consensus no footnotes? Amandajayner (discuss • contribs) 20:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good, Kelly go ahead if you are feeling up to it, if not we can just style it all to APA on Friday JustHollie (discuss • contribs) 20:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll get on it tonight! --Kelly.marvel (discuss • contribs) 21:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Ugh, I hate editing conflicts. I'll try this again. I was just saying that I think we should avoid APA in-text citations if possible as it reads more like an essay, instead of a Wikibook/Wikipedia page. I clicked on a random WikiBook page and found this one which I like the citation style it uses: Natural and Cultural History of North-East Australia's Wet Tropical Forests. It appears clearer but in the interest of time, I'll keep citing using APA. If, on Friday, we have time, we can work to change it to a different style. Unless Kelly is up for it! I don't want to be pushy! Kelly.marvel is a star! RedheadRachel (discuss • contribs) 21:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Like a few of the others have said, I'm sure we'll be fine using any of the suggested referencing styles as long as we keep it consistent throughout. It may be an idea to sneak a peek at the other book chapters and see how the other groups are referencing. Katrinamcaleer (discuss • contribs) 21:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I've already started changing the citations to keep them consistent. However, under the "toxic dis-inhibition effect" section, there is a reference to BBC 2011 but I cannot find any link matching the name and date. Could someone let me know what this is referencing? --Kelly.marvel (discuss • contribs) 22:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Same goes for the ABC 2011 reference in that section--Kelly.marvel (discuss • contribs) 22:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Under the 'Advantages' section, there are two references (Fred Stutzman, Carnegie Mellon) and (Laura B. Weiss, 2012) that are not referenced at the bottom --Kelly.marvel (discuss • contribs) 22:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

This may be a silly question but how do we go about changing the citations to match this when we add new content. I don't want to mess up all of your hard work! Katrinamcaleer (discuss • contribs) 22:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

In order to figure out how to reference, all you have to do is look at the book through edit mode. I would show you exactly what to type but then it comes up as a citation on here. You can look at this on the edit mode of the discussion page in order to see the formatting if that is easier. I hope that helps! If you're having diffucltly then let me know what section you're working on and I can insert the reference --Kelly.marvel (discuss • contribs) 10:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, that does help. I'll give it a go and I'll let you know if I do get stuck, thanks. Katrinamcaleer (discuss • contribs) 17:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I think that the idea of making it more like a wikibook by using footnotes is a great idea! I am going to attempt to put the references I have used into footnotes but I see that Kelly is offering help if anyone needs it, there is a strong possibility I may so thanks in advance! KathrynHairUpAndGlasses (discuss • contribs) 18:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Is the information we we have to have in the footnotes the same that is in the APA reference? Also, are the reference in bullet points the ones that have to be deleted after they have been made into footnotes? KathrynHairUpAndGlasses (discuss • contribs) 18:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so I have put in the footnotes in the paragraphs I have done. I'm still unsure about whether the references in bullet points have to be deleted when they are turned into footnotes. I'm assuming that we do so I am just going to delete them from that list. I have all of the information in case I wasn't supposed to so I can put them back in. KathrynHairUpAndGlasses (discuss • contribs) 18:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

The page is looking great. What else needs done before tomorrow? Amandajayner (discuss • contribs) 19:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Honestly having trouble thinking of really anything else to add to this page. Gonna see if I can find some original stuff that's a little less tied to the readings and such to add to the page. Hopefully that'll work well enough. Americanstephen (discuss • contribs) 20:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Link to your page?
Hey guys, I'm doing the section on Technological Imperative from the Tech Determinism page - basically this idea is that whatever developments we could make with technology, we will just because we can. This fits with y'alls work on inhibition; people will lose sense of whether they should do something online simply because they can push the limits. Would it be alright if I linked to y'alls page from this section?

Thanks!

AlexaSoccer (discuss • contribs) 18:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why that would be a problem, I like the idea of interlinking the pages. Could we do it back to yours? SiobhanDMC (discuss • contribs) 20:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Definitely! Working on fine tuning the page just now so will let you know when it's ready to link! AlexaSoccer (discuss • contribs) 10:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Glossary
Just a wee thought, would be good if we could keep the glossary in alphabetical order? I will do it the now and if any one adds any more just put in in the correct way. Looks neater and easier to read especially if more is to be added. Happy editing JustHollie (discuss • contribs) 14:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually the glossary is a bit of a riot and needs some TLC, there are repeats and the layout is all different so I will go ahead and edit it to make it all consistent JustHollie (discuss • contribs) 14:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Are we also going to add a list of 'contributors' at the end of our page? I notice that other groups have done so. JustHollie (discuss • contribs) 15:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Some of my group, including myself, put our names under the 'contributors' title on the main page. But it may be a good idea to add it to this page as well. Amandajayner (discuss • contribs) 19:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)