Talk:Living in a Connected World/The Hive Mind and Collective Intelligence

Planning - Out of your (Hive) Mind
[ Group consisting of   and  can use this space to discuss ideas]

Hi guys, now that we have our topic - 'The Hive Mind and Collective Intelligence' we should decide what topics we are going to split this into.

In Levy, P reading 'What is Collective Intelligence' they suggest that Collective Intelligence can be split into five different topics:
 * Ethical
 * Economical
 * Technological
 * Political
 * Aesthetic

We need to expand on these, but this could be a rough guide. These are only topics for Collective Intelligence, does anyone have any ideas for the 'Hive Mind'?

On the lecture slides for week four, there are sixteen suggested further readings. Shall we split these between the four of us, so we can cover all the basis and then re-group and discuss what we have read about. you could take readings 1-4, you could take readings 5-8, you could take readings 9-12 and I could take readings 13-16? Shall we give ourselves a time limit to have this done by so we can discuss our ideas in further detail. There is another group of four girls working on this wiki chapter as well. do you have any ideas / discussions to share?

susannamhawes Susannamhawes (discuss • contribs) 12:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'm happy to take readings 5-8. We should probably try to get them done as soon as possible since we don't have that much time left for this assignment. Also, I think anything that anyone thinks might be relevant to any of the topics listed above should be posted here so that whoever is working on that topic can use it. I don't have any ideas for the hive mind stuff at the minute but hopefully the readings will give me a few ideas. Imcgrouther18 (discuss • contribs) 13:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

We're going to use this discussion page to share ideas and plan the project. Make sure anything that is discussed on Facebook or face-to-face gets shared here too. Also, are there any groups from other labs doing this topic too? Just so we can communicate with them as well. Imcgrouther18 (discuss • contribs) 12:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Also, this is a page I found useful about how layout features and how to reference on here etc. Wikipedia:Help:Wiki markup Imcgrouther18 (discuss • contribs) 12:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, this is a page I found useful about how layout features and how to reference on here etc. Wikipedia:Help:Wiki markup Imcgrouther18 (discuss • contribs) 12:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

If both groups get together we can divide the readings even more. Mpurcell22 (discuss • contribs) 15:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Here's the list of the recommended readings from Week 4:
 * Berry, D. M. (2008) Copy, Rip, Burn: The Politics of Copyleft and Open Source
 * Carr, N. (2010) The Shallows: How the internet is changing the way we read, think and remember
 * Flew, T. (2008) New Media: An Introduction (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press
 * Gauntlett, D. (2011) Making is Connecting: The Social Meaning of Creativity, from DIY and knitting to YouTube and Web 2.0
 * Jenkins et al (2005) ‘Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century’ [available via eBridge]
 * Lanier, J. (2006) ‘Digital Maoism: The Hazards of the New Online Collectivism’ [available at: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/lanier06/lanier06_index.html]
 * Lessig, L. (2004) Free Culture: The Nature and Future of Creativity
 * Levine, R. (2011) Free Ride: How the internet is destroying the culture business, and how the culture business can fight back
 * Lévy, P. (1999) Collective Intelligence: Mankind’s Emerging World in Cyberspace
 * Lovink, G. (2008) Zero Comments: blogging and critical Internet culture
 * Rheingold, H. (2002a) Smart Mobs: Transforming Culture and Communities in the Age of Instant Access
 * Rhengold, H. (2002b) ‘Smart Mobs’ summary [available at: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/rheingold/rheingold_print.html]
 * Scholz, T. (ed.) (2013) Digital Labor: The Internet as Playground and Factory
 * Shirky, C. (2010) Cognitive Surplus: Creativity and Generosity in a Connected Age
 * Surowiecki, J. (2004) The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few
 * Terranova, T. (2004) Network Culture: Politics for the Information Age Imcgrouther18 (discuss • contribs) 16:00, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

That's a good idea, and it evens out the workload. I've split the readings up, hope everyone is happy with this.


 * Ian, you can take readings 1-3.
 * Aidan, you can take readings 4-6.
 * Jack, you can take readings 7 and 8.
 * I can take readings 9 and 10.
 * Mary, you can take readings 11 and 12.
 * Lucy, you can take readings 13 and 14.
 * Morgaine, you can take readings 15 and 16.

Shall we say that all the readings should be done by our meeting on Thursday at 2pm.

susannamhawes Susannamhawes (discuss • contribs) 18:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's fine with me. Are we meeting at the library tomorrow? Imcgrouther18 (discuss • contribs) 15:10, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Planning - Group With No Name
[ Group consisting of   can use this space to discuss ideas ]

Hi, the previous group (   and  ) has identified Ethics, Economics, Technologies, Politics and Aesthetic as being the five topics that create a collective intelligence, should we split these topics between our two groups as to not cause a repetition of information between our posts? Does anyone have any preferences over what topic they would like to do? Once we have this sorted we can move on to discussing The Hive Mind. Mmmorgaine (discuss • contribs) 15:28, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi guys. We were just looking at the lab sheet from week five and was reminded we need to include a glossary on the main page to identify/define the key terms of each chapter. Just making sure everyone else was aware of this because it had completely slipped my mind! Lucystewpid (discuss • contribs) 16:00, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Meeting
Shall we meet on Thursday from 2pm-4pm? or Friday from 1pm-3pm?

I can do both. Lets discuss and we can decide.

susannamhawes Susannamhawes (discuss • contribs) 13:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I can do both as well so just whatever is easier for everyone else. Where do you want to meet? Imcgrouther18 (discuss • contribs) 13:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Is this for my group as well? If so, I can do either time as well Mmmorgaine (discuss • contribs) 15:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, our group was just wondering it would be beneficial for us to come to this meeting as well? If so, I am free to attend both. Lucystewpid (discuss • contribs) 15:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I am able to attend the Thursday meeting if that is something we want to do. Mpurcell22 (discuss • contribs) 15:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I think it would probably be a good idea if both groups are there since we're going to have to work together on this chapter. Imcgrouther18 (discuss • contribs) 16:16, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree, would be great if both groups could attend. Shall we say Thursday at 2pm? We can meety in the atrium, outside the social study area. susannamhawes Susannamhawes (discuss • contribs) 18:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I can make the Thursday 2pm-4pm meeting. Jackhand1 (discuss • contribs) 21:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good to me Mmmorgaine (discuss • contribs) 00:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I can attend either times, Thursday would be more ideal for me though! Aidancc (discuss • contribs) 11:07, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Topics
Hive Mind

There was quite a bit about the Hive Mind in one of the readings I did (Digital Maoism: The Hazards of the New Online Collectivism by Jaron Lanier). A few of the points he makes are: Imcgrouther18 (discuss • contribs) 15:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The emergence of 'Artificial Intelligence' has played a part in encouraging people to develop the Hive Mind(set). Sites like "Digg" and "Reddit" that collect material from other sites using algorithms rather than people to make decisions often produce useless material but people are more likely to dumb themselves down to make the AI seem smart.
 * "Just as people are willing to bend over backwards and make themselves stupid in order to make an AI interface appear smart so they are willing to become uncritical and dim in order to make Meta-aggregator sites appear to be coherent."
 * He also discusses how sites that rely on collectives (e.g. Wikipedia) to produce content lack personality and context.
 * "When you see the context in which something was written and you know who the author was beyond just a name, you learn so much more than when you find the same text placed in the anonymous, faux-authoritative, anti-contextual brew of the Wikipedia."
 * He does concede that it is possible for collectives to be intelligence but only in certain contexts and he believes that collectives are most effective when they are guided by an individual.
 * "Every authentic example of the collective intelligence that I am aware of also shows how that collective was guided or inspired by well-meaning individuals. These people focused the collective and in some cases also corrected for some of the common hive mind failure modes.

Collective Intelligence

My concept "The Sociology of the Collective Intelligence" isn't technically an aspect of the ideas Lanier put forward. So I am just going to address what he says but put it in the separate part of the book? Is that alright with everyone? I just want to make sure that this formatting sounds alright. Aidancc (discuss • contribs) 12:44, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Organisation
As there is eight of us (2 groups) working on this page, I feel like we should keep it as organized as possible, so we can track back easily, and follow the flow and development of ideas. By doing this, I think every time someone makes a new 'point' or 'addition' we should make it into a title. you can do this by adding the '=' twice before and after the word(s) you want to make the title. For example when I made 'organisation' the title I did this: =/= Organisation =/= (without the '/' marks). Hope this helps.

susannamhawes Susannamhawes (discuss • contribs) 13:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)


 * some reading suggestions...

Lévy, Pierre (1999) Collective Intelligence: Mankind’s Emerging World in Cyberspace. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books

Lindgren, S. (2014) ‘Crowdsourcing Knowledge: Interdiscursive flows from Wikipedia into scholarly research’ in Culture Unbound: Journal of Current Cultural Research, 6: 609-627.

______ (2015) ‘The Work of Audiences in the Age of Clicktivism: On the Ins and Outs of Distributed Participation’ in Media Fields Journal, 10: 1-6. GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 15:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Joint Discussion
We can use this section when we want to talk between the two groups. One thing we wanted to let you know is our group member @KerryFromThePub-Round2 is no longer a part of our group. Only three people are in our group now. Mpurcell22 (discuss • contribs) 15:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm from the group doing Privacy in a Digital Age and was wondering if anyone would be up for collaborating with the idea of the individual vs. collective? In other words, the private sphere being for the individual and the public sphere as more of a collective space. Not sure how to link it to intelligence, but it might be an idea to work together somehow. I've just been doing reading at the moment so I haven't written anything yet, but I thought I'd see if anyone would be up for sharing info at some point. Sorry if I put this query in the wrong place, feel free to move it. EmilymDaniel (discuss • contribs) 00:01, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

So here are some of the notes from the first two of the readings I was designated (I am about half way through the 3rd one so I will put that up when I am done).

Making is Connecting, David Gauntlett (2011)

-	Web 2.0 is associated with the promise of collaboration: “people coming together to do things online, that without the tools of the internet would have been impossible to organise” p198

-	Lanier reminds us that human beings are worth cherishing because of their rich, distinctive, individual, natures, not because of they are simple and predictable p197

-	“we shouldn’t seek to make the pack mentality as efficient as possible…we should instead seek to inspire the phenomenon of individual intelligence” “mush-making process” Jason Lanier, You Are Not A Gadget: A Manifesto, 2010 p5

-	Note that “designed by a committee” is never used as a compliment when describing art

-	Argues Wikipedia is the best example of online collaboration we have got, because everyone understands an encyclopaedia is meant to be bland and descriptive

-	He argues YouTube and Flickr work because they enable users to create content, with each unit of collaboration being relatively substantial (i.e. you don’t collaborate on the content of each YouTube video or Flickr image, these are self-contained things before submitted to the site)

-	“great works of art, or great scientific ideas are not usually produced through an open free-for-all method of collaboration” p199

-	a focussed collaboration with smallish groups. He gives the example of scientific innovations, music recordings, political strategies. He notes these are substantially greater than what the individuals involved might have produced if working separately

-	“online collaboration consists of a drizzle of thousands of fragmentary contributions coming from all over the place” p199

-	Open sites like the astronomy site Galaxy Zoo work because they utilise amateur, everyday people, “citizen scientists”

-	If the product being worked on was a movie script or a symphony, the “mush” problem begins to occur

-	Lanier suggests computer scientists have got carried away with the dream of a “hive-mind” or “noophere” p49

-	“the Singularity”

-	Refined points about what is important about Web 2.0:

-	a) the view that Web 2.0 tools enable people to easily make and share creative things is strong, but

-	b) the view that mass collaboration will bring about untold artistic and creative riches may be weak

-	The “hive mind enthusiasts” such as Clay Shirky and Charles Leadbeater, excited about pragmatic collaborations, rather than instances of human creativity and self-expression – people organising themselves without any centralised leadership or hierarchies, practical not artistic

-	Leadbeater has a dream of “high-quality mush – full collaborations at a fine grain level” Charles Leadbeater, We Think: Mass Innovation Not Mass Production (London: Profile Books, 2008)

-	This suggests that this use would be for scientific and information applications, not artistic communication

Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture, Jenkins et al (2005)

-	“Challenging the traditional view that intelligence is an attribute of individuals, the distributed cognition perspective holds that intelligence is distributed across “brain, body, and world,””

-	“In other words, intelligence is accomplished rather than possessed.” Roy Pea

-	Externalisation of memory, for example databases

-	“The more we rely on the capacities of technologies as part of our work, the more it may seem that cognition is distributed” p66

-	The example of teachers encouraging students to bring scratch paper with them into math exams, as the ability to construct representations and record processes is vital in solving complex problems.

-	“If, as Clark notes, technologies are inextricably interwoven with thinking, it makes no sense to “factor out” what the human brain is doing as the “real” part of thinking and to view what the technology is doing as a “cheat” or “crutch.””p66

-	 Rather, we can understand cognitive activity as shared among a number of people and artefacts, and cognitive acts as learning to think with other people and artefacts

-	Collective Intelligence – a social production similar to distributed intelligence and emphasises the role of technologies in the process of thinking across mind, body and the world

-	Examples of distributed intelligence can be found starting on p69

-	The collective intelligence is when like minded individuals gather online to embrace common enterprises – Piere Lévy

-	Levy argues everybody knows something, but nobody knows everything

-	Knowledge cultures, currently our society is in an apprenticeship phase, trying out new methods of thinking, communicating with the utilisation of technology, where we can refine skills and institutions that will sustain the social production of knowledge

-	Levy sees collective intelligence as an alternate source of power, ie grassroots communities can harness the power to respond to government states or corporate interests etc

-	We learn through play, the example of Pokemon

-	“These knowledge communities change the very nature of media consumption—a shift from the personalized media that was central to the idea of the digital revolution toward socialized or communalized media that is central to the culture of media convergence” (note 86) p73

-	Ad hoc framework of how the modern workplace is structures as a result of this kind of thinking

-	Real world examples start on p75

-	The process also involves a large number of errors

-	It is widely understood that knowledge is a product, but in the case of collective intelligence it is also a process

-	“Misinformation abounds online, but so do mechanisms for self-correction. In such a world, we can only trust established institutions so far. We all must learn how to read one source of information against another, to understand the contexts within which information is produced and circulated, to identify the mechanisms that ensure the accuracy of information, and to realize under which circumstances those mechanisms work best. Confronted with a world in which information is unreli- able, many of us fall back on cynicism, distrusting everything we read. Rather, we should foster a climate of healthy skepticsm, but in reality there is an ethical commitment to identifying and reporting the truth” p81

-	“The new mediated landscape of mainstream news sources, collaborative blog projects, unsourced news sites, and increasingly sophisticated marketing techniques aimed at ever-younger consumers demands that students be taught how to distinguish fact from ﬁction, argument from documentation, real from fake, and marketing from enlightenment” p81

-	“To be a functioning adult in a mediated society, one needs to be able to distinguish between different media forms and know how to ask basic questions about everything we watch, read, or hear,” Share, Jolls, and Thoman.

-	Judgement has long been the focus of digital literacy in education

-	In discussing “The Wisdom of Crowds,” James Suroweicki describes the conditions needed to receive the maximum benefit from collective intelligence: “There are four key qualities that make a crowd smart. It needs to be di- verse, so that people are bringing different pieces of information to the table. It needs to be decentralized, so that no one at the top is dictating the crowd’s answer. It needs a way of summarizing people’s opinions into one collective verdict. And the people in the crowd need to be in- dependent, so that they pay attention mostly to their own information, and not worrying about what everyone around them thinks” note 108, p94

Aidancc (discuss • contribs) 14:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey guys, I've roughly edited the layout of the main book page as to make the headings for each topic clearer for our initial start on this project, feel free to alter it if you wish, I just did this as to make it easier to identify where each of us should be working rather than having to edit the entire page to make changes to one topic section Mmmorgaine (discuss • contribs) 17:55, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I've also added an 'Origins' topic and a couple pictures Mmmorgaine (discuss • contribs) 22:25, 3 March 2017 (UTC) Hi, can you tell me how to put pictures up? Mpurcell22 (discuss • contribs) 22:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

, If you scroll down to the Formatting Pictures / Tables etc. section, there's just been a description posted of how to do it, if you're still confused after reading that then let me know Mmmorgaine (discuss • contribs) 15:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I think I'm pretty much done with my topic (Hive Mind) if anyone wants to have a read. Let me know if you think I need to change anything. Imcgrouther18 (discuss • contribs) 14:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi My section is pretty much done. I just need to do my Glossary section and also reference. If anyone could read over it and let me know of additions / edits I should make, that would be great. Thanks. Susannamhawes (discuss • contribs) 15:38, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi guys, I'm from another group and noticed that you have included links to other wiki pages in your text. I thought this was a really good idea, and wondered if you could tell me how to do this. Thankyou Ailsaharv (discuss • contribs) 19:30, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * It's pretty easy, if you want to link to any Wikipedia page just do this name of page . For example, Collective intelligence will result in a link like this Collective intelligence Imcgrouther18 (discuss • contribs) 21:30, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks Iain, I'll try that out! Ailsaharv (discuss • contribs) 09:44, 8 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Hey guys, just a reminder that we're also to add our glossary terms to the main page: https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Living_in_a_Connected_World Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think author's names need to be included in the glossary, I've seen a few there and it's got me confused?


 * Yeah, we definitely don't need author's names in the glossary, just key terms. Imcgrouther18 (discuss • contribs) 21:30, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I've read over both your sections and they're really great, I can't think of anything you might have missed out. I corrected a couple spelling/grammar mistakes as I read through them since I figured that'd be easier than having to pinpoint each one in a message. I've finished my section on Ethics so if either of you could read over that and correct any of my spelling/grammar and suggest any topics I might have missed then that'd be great, Thanks Mmmorgaine (discuss • contribs) 22:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey guys      just wondering if I should put the "sociological" heading as 3.4 on the contents page or is there another reason the formatting jumps to "aesthetics"? Thanks guys Aidancc (discuss • contribs) 11:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I think the formatting has changed since Aidan's post, is everyone okay with the final layout of our chapter? Mmmorgaine (discuss • contribs) 15:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah sorry, I think I inserted the aesthetics page incorrectly, I meant to follow you guys' format. I'll try and fix it soon!

Never mind, someone fixed it. Thank you! Lucystewpid (discuss • contribs) 15:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Dividing Topics
Introduction: Anyone can contribute - specifics of their own topic

Glossary: Everyone adds their own relevant terms

Main Topics:

Jackhand1 (discuss • contribs) 14:53, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * ethical (Morgaine)
 * economical (Mary)
 * technological (Susanna)
 * political (Jack)
 * aesthetics (Lucy)
 * sociological (Aidan)
 * hive mind (Iain)

Hi, I'd recommend taking a look at the reading Terranova, T. (2004) Network Culture: Politics for the Information Age as a PDF of the book can be found online and it discuses the politics of the internet in relation to a hive mind and collective intelligence, introducing the idea that it is capitalist. It also discusses the links collective intelligence has to the economy, so I'd also recommend it for whoever decides to cover that topic. Mmmorgaine (discuss • contribs) 17:40, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey, excellent thanks very much Morgaine, this will be a big help. Jackhand1 (discuss • contribs) 17:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you as well this was very helpful for the economy topic. Mpurcell22 (discuss • contribs) 18:37, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

What are we considering glossary terms? Any advice would be great on this! Thanks Susannamhawes (discuss • contribs) 12:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I believe we're considering glossary terms to be any words that relate specifically to this topic, I hope that helps Mmmorgaine (discuss • contribs) 15:04, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Readings
Hey, I've done a few readings that might be able to help people with their sections, I'm not sure but I'll just put up the main points and hopefully some stuff might be useful to other people.

The Work of Audiences in the Age of Clicktivism: On the Ins and Outs of Distributed Participation by Simon Lindgren: Imcgrouther18 (discuss • contribs) 15:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The perspective of the believers is obvious: We now have a global digital infrastructure in place, where people are interconnected in dense social networks where democratic mobilization and transformative and participatory communication can happen in the wink of an eye. The grumpy skeptics, on their part, argue that ever-present power structures of capitalism, exclusion, racism, and misogyny will come out on top. (p1) Technological/Political?
 * What does activism and participation mean when all you have to do to express your engagement is click a mouse? Do the clicks make a difference, or are they just producing an illusion of civil society? Are they simply meaningless, or are they a valid new form of participation that challenge normative notions of democracy and participation? Are they signalling the death of collective action, or are they pointing to future ways of engaging? (p3) Political?

Crowdsourcing Knowledge: Interdiscursive Flows from Wikipedia into Scholarly Research by Simon Lindgren:
 * Information increasingly flows from smart online knowledge systems based on 'collective intelligence,' and to the more traditional forms of knowledge production that takes place within academia. (p609)
 * The notion of collective intelligence is based on the idea that no single person knows everything but everyone knows something, and this collective knowledge can be harnessed through social media. People networking and sharing knowledge, experience and ideas results in a form of intelligence that, according to Lévy, is universally distributed, coordinated in real time, and constantly enhanced. (p610) Technological?
 * Wikipedia can be defined in terms of what Rheingold wrote in 1994 about 'virtual communities'. It is based on the 'power of cooperation' and 'a merger of knowledge capital, social capital, and communion'. Such communities attract 'colonies of enthusiasts' because the digital platform enables them 'to do things with each other in new ways, and to do altogether new kinds of things. (Rheingold 1994: xxi) (p612) Technological?
 * While Wikipedia's collaborative model for knowledge production through the use of a multitude of anonymous contributors has been praised, the same model has also been criticised and questioned. Researchers have repeatedly shown that a small core of dedicated individuals, rather than the alleged crowd of participants, has produced and controlled much of the content, especially during the first five years of Wikipedia's existence (Niederer & van Dijck 2010) (p613) Imcgrouther18 (discuss • contribs) 16:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Zero Comments: Blogging and Critical Internet Culture by Geert Lovink: Imcgrouther18 (discuss • contribs) 17:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Blogs, wikis and "social networks" such as Friendster, MySpace, Orkut, and Flickr were presented as the next wave of voluntary alliances that users seek online. Virtual communities had become a discredited term, "associated with discredited ideas about cyberspace as an independent polity, and failed dotcom ideas about assembling community in the shadow of a mass-market brand such as forums on the Coca Cola site." Instead, there was talk of swarms, mobs, and crowds. Media had turned social. From collaborative content production such as Wikipedia, to social bookmarking on Digg, there was a new élan. The BBC designated 2005 as the "year of the digital citizen." (ix) Economic?
 * The Boxing Day tsunami of 2004, the July 7th London bombings, and Hurricane Katrina in the United States all demonstrated the fact that citizens now have an integral role in the production of news. (x) Ethical?
 * Despite a new generation of applications, the spectacular rise of the Internet population, and increased user involvement, most of the topics facing the Internet remained much the same: corporate control, surveillance and censorship, intellectual property rights, filtering, economic sustainability, and governance. (x) Political/Economic?

Smart Mobs summary by Howard Rheingold:
 * Smart mobs use mobile media and computer networks to organize collective actions, from swarms of techo-savvy youth in urban Asia and Scandinavia to citizen revolts on the streets of Seattle, Manila, and Caracas. Political/Technological?
 * Communication and computing technologies capable of amplifying human cooperation already appear to be both beneficial and destructive, used by some to support democracy and by others to coordinate terrorist attacks. Already, governments have fallen, subcultures have blossomed, new industries have been born and older industries have launched counterattacks. Political/Technological/Economic?
 * There are both dangers and opportunities posed by this emerging phenomenon. Smart mob devices, industries, norms, and social consequences are in their earliest stages of development, but they are evolving rapidly. Current political and social conflicts over how smart mob technologies will be designed and regulated pose questions about the way we will all live for decades to come. Political/Sociological?
 * The big battle coming over the future of smart mobs concerns media cartels and government agencies are seeking to reimpose the regime of the broadcast era in which the customers of technology will be deprived of the power to create and left only with the power to consume. That power struggle is what the battles over file-sharing, copy protection, regulation of the radio spectrum are about. Are the populations of tomorrow going to be users, like the PC owners and website creators who turned technology to widespread innovation? Or will they be consumers, constrained from innovation and locked into the technology and business models of the most powerful entrenched interests? Political/Technological/Ethical/Economic?
 * The people who make up smart mobs cooperate in ways never before possible because they carry devices that possess both communication and computing capabilities. Their mobile devices connect them with other information devices in the environment as well as with other people's telephones. Technological?
 * There are the dangers as well as opportunities concerning smart mobs. I used the word "mob" deliberately because of its dark resonances. Humans have used our talents for cooperation to organize atrocities. Technologies that enable cooperation are not inherently pathological: unlike nuclear bombs or land mines, smart mob technologies have the potential for being used for good as well as evil. Ethical/Political?
 * On the other hand, when cooperation breaks out, civilizations advance and the lives of citizens improve. This is the big opportunity of smart mobs. Language, the alphabet, cities, the printing press did not eliminate poverty or injustice, but they did make it possible for groups of people to create cooperative enterprises such as science and democracy that increased the health, welfare, and liberty of many. Ethical/Sociological?
 * Just as medicine only became an effective weapon against illness when science furnished useful knowledge about the nature of diseases, the most effective use of communication and computer technologies could emerge from new scientific understandings of human cooperation. The most powerful opportunities for human progress are rooted not in electronics but in understandings of social practices. Sociologists, political scientists, evolutionary biologists, even nuclear warfare strategists have contributed the first clues that an interdisciplinary science of cooperation might be emerging. Sociological?

Imcgrouther18 (discuss • contribs) 19:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll be sure to check these readings out in relation to my topic Mmmorgaine (discuss • contribs) 21:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

From what I gather this is where the concept of the internet as collective 'hive mind' first originated. Maybe worth a read if you haven't already.
 * Out of Control by Kevin Kelly 1994. Jackhand1 (discuss • contribs) 14:40, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'll give that a read. Cheers. Imcgrouther18 (discuss • contribs) 13:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for sharing, I'm planning on expanding what I've written in the History and Origins section so this should help a lot Mmmorgaine (discuss • contribs)

Referencing
I've managed to find a few templates for referencing that should help with the chapter. Just ask if you have any questions about them or there's more information here: Citing sources Imcgrouther18 (discuss • contribs) 14:01, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * To cite a book
 * To cite a book with 2 or more authors
 * To cite a chapter of a book
 * To cite a chapter of a book with multiple authors
 * To cite a journal
 * To cite a newspaper article
 * To cite a web page with author credit
 * To cite a web page with no author credit

Thanks for the templates. Mpurcell22 (discuss • contribs) 18:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Formatting Pictures / Tables etc.
Hi guys. I tried to include an image in one of my Wiki exercises, but received a notification that it had been 'marked as a possible copyright violation' and it is no longer visible. This [|This page] makes it clear that you can only upload work you have created yourself, but I was confused as I have seen so many Wiki pages feature images from external sources that I attempted to upload it anyway under fair use. I see our Wikibook includes images such as the Yahoo logo - is their a risk that these could be removed in the same way? Or is their an alternate means of uploading them I am not aware of? Thanks for your help! Lucystewpid (discuss • contribs) 04:36, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure, I was under the impression that you could use any image that had already been uploaded to Wikipedia or any of the other wiki sites. I've found a discussion page where someone might be able to answer your question: Media copyright questions Imcgrouther18 (discuss • contribs) 09:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Hopefully this helps as well...I'm having trouble putting images into my topic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Wiki_markup#Images Susannamhawes (discuss • contribs) 12:42, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Guys!

I have found a way to format tables into the wiki books. I used this format when I put mine in my topic section. (I have used 'xxx' so that it doesn't create a table. If you press edit on this post then you will be able to see the format more clearly!)

{ xxx ! Wiki !! —> !! Wiki
 * Wiki || —> || Wiki
 * Wiki || —> || Wiki
 * Wiki || —> || Wiki
 * }
 * Wiki || —> || Wiki
 * }
 * }

In the first { bracket put -- | class="wikitable" -- instead of xxx

It will then look like this...

Susannamhawes (discuss • contribs) 12:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

How do I get a link to picture? I cannot figure it out and the link I have posted above isn't helping. Thanks Susannamhawes (discuss • contribs) 13:13, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I think you can take any picture that's already been uploaded onto any of the wiki sites, so I've just been going on to Wikipedia to search for what I want. Once you've found the picture you want just click on it and it should come up with the file name. For example, File:Wikipedia-logo-v2.svg. Once you've got this you can use these templates to put it where you want: file name will place the image on the right of the page and file name will place the image on the left of the page.


 * e.g. Wikipedia-logo-v2.svg will result in this picture: Wikipedia-logo-v2.svg


 * I hope this helps, it's kind of hard to describe without being able to actually show you. Imcgrouther18 (discuss • contribs) 13:36, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, it does! Susannamhawes (discuss • contribs) 14:21, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

That's what I'be been doing for pictures in the introduction/origin/ethics, however sometimes they don't display and come up in red instead, I'm trying to figure out the cause of this problem Mmmorgaine (discuss • contribs) 15:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah, of course! That's great help, thank you! I'm assuming you guys have used this [page] as a guide anyway, but just here it is just incase anyone hasn't. It explains how to change the size and alignment of images quite well. Lucystewpid (discuss • contribs) 17:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)