Talk:Perspectives in Digital Culture/Technological Innovation

'''Good work so far teams. One thought - technology - what is that? Isn't that a key word in itself? What does it mean? What are the implications for your critical engagement with the topic, if say, you were to unearth a whole tradition of relevant scholarship from all sorts of disciplines (philosophy, history, politics, science etc.) relating to that term? Hmmm, just a thought''' GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 16:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Lewis Caffrey from team 'need 4 for team'. Lec00045 (discuss • contribs) 14:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC) My name is Louise, I have yet to choose a group name LittleMermaid95 (discuss • contribs) 14:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC) My name is Daniel, bring on getting a group Danex90 (discuss • contribs) 14:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC) Hoping that this is the subject I get to work on. Benreid2407 (discuss • contribs) 15:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm Finn and I'm apparently too cool to have taken the time to find a group by myself. Let's see how that works out FinnWstone (discuss • contribs) 16:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC) Haven't got a team or picked a topic, but this sounds interesting. Blackflagdog (discuss • contribs) 16:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Anybody needing two more people for a group? Cause me and a friend are still looking for one. We're not picky. MacPickles (discuss • contribs) 17:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)MacPickles

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy, also we need another two people for our group Tuesday 1300 seminar Michael James McD (discuss • contribs) 17:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Now that we have our team sorted although the team name of Belgian Waffles is not amazing, we really need to get going on this, miles behind everyone else already partly not our fault but anyway lets get this project started! Has00031 (discuss • contribs) 12:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Right, group in the 3-4 seminar for this page, I'm having a go at this today, we need to get a move on, I'm going to write a slight introduction and such like but we do, obviously, need to come together to get it sorted, so I'll maybe send a e-mail later if I hear nothing else. Cheers. Scottyscarf (discuss • contribs) 13:09, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes I agree. time to buckle down a bit I think. Can the person who wrote the section on transmediality and media convergence please try add that to the media convergence bit nearer the top so its tidier and serves as a introduction to the topic. Oac00001 (discuss • contribs) 12:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC) For some reason, the reference I put in is appearing the glossary rather than the reference list, any reason why this is/how to fix it? Scottyscarf (discuss • contribs) 14:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi there, sorry it's taken me so long to get on this. When I knew the holidays were coming I agreed to do overtime at work and then we got told about this project. Anyway, i'm here now. Should we split ourselves into categories and we can work on them individually? I know we are working as a group but there is no point in us all working on the same section? Let me know! Cmvance (discuss • contribs) 09:02, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps we could have a section going into more depth about what was mentioned in the intro, and then examples of some of the most groundbreaking pieces of technological innovation, such as the internet, television, even radio, smart phones etc. I've had a quick glance at the lecture notes but I can't seem to see anything on this subject, am I missing it completely? Cheers Cmvance (discuss • contribs) 09:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC) Obviously the key to this project is to work together break down the key elements of what we want to speak about and assign the people in this group the different parts to the technological innovation. Remember the engagement part of this project is key so regular dialogue and discussion on this page about topics etc is key for us to work well as a team and to get a good grade Has00031 (discuss • contribs) 13:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

No worries! A good idea would be to get our group, Mob Rule, a facebook group or something. With the lecture notes and that, I might be wrong, but it seems that this topic is more general than a lot of the others, it's a little confusing. Scottyscarf (discuss • contribs) 15:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Everyone covering this topic should get a group together, ours is Belgian Waffles, i agree with you it is rather confusing so a brainstorm or something along that idea with everyone covering this topic would be good Has00031 (discuss • contribs) 15:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Yep that's probably a good idea! Once we all know what to tackle it'll be easier, shall we get that sorted asap? I'm Scott Paterson on Facebook. Scottyscarf (discuss • contribs) 15:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I know i'm going to be a real problem but I don't have Facebook. My group is Belgian Waffles, is there any way we can message each other besides this? Cmvance (discuss • contribs) 18:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I share the trepidation regarding this subject. Perhaps the worst part if that everybody here will have a good idea of what technological innovation is, and what constitutes it. And it's been a running theme in the lectures, it's just that producing something academic regarding it will require a lot of searching. I reckon to get started, concepts like media as determining vs determined and Remediation could make for a good foundation for further research. What do you guys all think? MacPickles (discuss • contribs) 19:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)MacPickles

Yep, that sounds good to me. As long as we get a good foundation of what we're actually writing, then doing the thing shouldn't (here's hoping!) be too bad. Scottyscarf (discuss • contribs) 19:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

MacPickles, I think that in order to avoid repetition we have to split the subject into separate topics, and then assign them to each individual so we are not tripping over each other with the same information. Is it just the two groups working on Technological Innovation? Cmvance (discuss • contribs) 19:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Just the two groups, yeah. Scottyscarf (discuss • contribs) 20:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Cool, any ideas on how many categories/sections we would need? Cmvance (discuss • contribs) 20:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

That's the problem. It's hard to say because this topic is so general. MacPickles (discuss • contribs) 20:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)MacPickles

We could do a brief history of technological innovation. We'd just have to figure out where to start that from, and find relevant writings. MacPickles (discuss • contribs) 13:18, 21 February 2015 (UTC)MacPickles

I like that idea, sounds like a plan! Scottyscarf (discuss • contribs) 16:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Technological Determinism might be a good thing to write about at some point, that seems pretty relevant to me. Scottyscarf (discuss • contribs) 16:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

In fact, I'm going to write a bit on Technological Determinism now. If it's crap/irrelevant then feel free to edit etc, but it seems like a good start to me and it is good to get some stuff down. Scottyscarf (discuss • contribs) 16:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I think it will be useful background info. I'm gonna write on remediation. It seems relevant as well. MacPickles (discuss • contribs) 17:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)MacPickles

Nice one, we've got some nice teamwork going on here MacPickles. Scottyscarf (discuss • contribs) 17:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm gonna get a section on remediation done today. It seems like a useful foundational concept to discuss. If anybody disagrees, or wants to edit it after I'm done, feel free. MacPickles (discuss • contribs) 11:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)MacPickles

BELGIAN WAFFLES GROUP CHAT Oac00001 (discuss • contribs) 12:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking that we can choose one of the main topics from the lectures each and go through it individually. We can choose what we want to write about and compare notes. That sound good? Oac00001 (discuss • contribs) 12:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Cool yeah that's fine by me. I'll do Transmedia Storytelling because I'm most comfortable with that. Feel free to edit whatever I write though Sak00030 (discuss • contribs) 12:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok cool. Ill focus on technology and culture. Maybe bring in some readings for examples and stuff like that. Oac00001 (discuss • contribs) 12:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm happy to focus on media convergence in relationship to technological convergence. Michael James McD (discuss • contribs) 12:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I would like to focus on always on culture, I have a lot to say on this in relation to the new culture of always being online. if anyone from the other group wants to do the same, we can collaborate on this platform. Has00031 (discuss • contribs) 12:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Good point. If the other group has issues with what we are up to or want us to collaborate with them on something let us know! We will do likewise. Oac00001 (discuss • contribs) 12:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Guys if you're making a large edit use the Edit Summary box at the bottom to describe why, that'll help a lot Sak00030 (discuss • contribs) 13:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

No worries, will make sure to do that. Oac00001 (discuss • contribs) 13:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

away to do a bit of work on the always-on culture, if anyone has anything to add feel free to collaborate Has00031 (discuss • contribs) 13:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

In my post on always on culture i am talking about the blur that can happen between real life and the online world and i have included "trolling" do you think this relates to always on because obviously the people that do this would not act in this way in real life but they do on social media? am i going on the right lines here? Has00031 (discuss • contribs) 13:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I have added a bit on alway-on culture, feel free to edit anything that you dont like or give me pointers for things i can add when i come to doing more for it. I think to add to what i have already wrote i will add some readings and what other theorists have said about it. I feel like i have got the basic points from the lecture down but if there is anything i missed than let me know or edit it and we will go from there. Will be back tonight to look at collaborations etc. Has00031 (discuss • contribs) 14:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The page is looking a lot better. Only suggestions I can make are to use more hyperlinks, and reference more. Makes it look more professional. Also, do everything you can to link these concepts into technological innovation. The Always-On section is great, but it could be stressed more what innovations in technology have led to this sort of culture. MacPickles (discuss • contribs) 22:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)MacPickles

Aye that's some good stuff Belgian Waffles, but if you can put all of the references in that'll be great! I'm about to fix it so the reference list/glossary problem is fixed! I'm also going to add some stuff to the glossary today. And if some other people from Mob Rule could write some stuff that would be great too. Whether it's additional info on a topic that's already there, or a new topic you've researched yourself like Jack and I did with Remediation and Cultural Determinism, it would be awesome if you could get something down. Scottyscarf (discuss • contribs) 12:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I've just added a new section to the page. If you feel like the section names are inappropriate, or a subject falls under a different section, feel free to change something. MacPickles (discuss • contribs) 16:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)MacPickles

By the way, I found this PDF. It's about remediation. But I reckon it might be useful since it covers a lot of technological innovations. MacPickles (discuss • contribs) 16:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)MacPickles

Cheers Jack, I'll have a look at that! Scottyscarf (discuss • contribs) 16:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

see the glossary is it just any terms that relate to technological innovation? not 100% sure about that. seems like its just the two or three of you contributing can we all get as much down as we can and we need more discussion on this remember its the majority of our grade. the referencing is it just standard referencing like you would in an essay? Has00031 (discuss • contribs) 16:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

not sure how to add references i cant find all the references that are already there? can someone help? Has00031 (discuss • contribs) 16:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Read other Wikipedia pages as an example. Include information like the book title, the authors, the date of publishing, and the pages referenced, but don't do it in the main body like some people have done. That's what the reference icon is for. MacPickles (discuss • contribs) 16:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)MacPickles

Has00031, the glossary is just any terms we've mentioned in our passages, so we've to put them in there. You're right, everyone needs to contribute, I've posted a few times on our group's facebook page to get some other contributions, but as yet only MacPickles and I have done so. Reference wise, what to do is reference as you would an essay in a bibliography, but set this out in the text itself, so you'd say John McDonald, for example, says such and such, and following that put in the reference inbetween and < /ref > (without the spaces) and this sets it out, have a look at the edit section of the Technological Determinism section if you need to check how I've done it. Hope this helps! Scottyscarf (discuss • contribs) 16:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Having a look over the page there is a few sloppy grammar errors, such as Facebook and Twitter not having capital letters. I think it's important to iron these out, and i've began doing so. Also, the Always-On paragraph about online trolling with Neil Lennon feels a bit exhausting. It could be much more concise. What do you think? Cmvance (discuss • contribs) 08:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I've also added a couple of sentences to the Transmediality section on Lego, showing how it's went from simply being a toy to becoming films and video games. I feel like it is important to give examples of the more complex matters so that the page is not filled with jargon. Cmvance (discuss • contribs) 08:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

If you go down this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_technology to the section marked 20th Century, it has a list which details the most important technological developments, decided upon by an Academy of Engineering. Maybe we could pull out some of the most important ones (to our personal page, not in general) and dissect them in more detail for the History of Technological Innovation section? Cmvance (discuss • contribs) 08:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I've edited the Always-On section to try and weed out all the grammar mistakes, however it still (to me) looks a little chunky. The use of hyperlinks can really break up large paragraphs of text, so maybe where people are being quoted, or incidents are being referenced, we could add the original links to it. Cmvance (discuss • contribs) 09:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I've also added a little bit about Apple in the history section since it is clearly one of the big game changers in that area. Not much but at least it's a start. Cmvance (discuss • contribs) 09:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with that. i think the neil lennon example is a very relevant example as it highlights online trolling and the problems it can cause. Always on culture can create this so i think its more than concise enough. good to see you getting involved at last. better late than never... Has00031 (discuss • contribs) 13:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The always on culture chapter does this needed added to or is it too chunky as someone has pointed out?.. Has00031 (discuss • contribs) 13:04, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I think always-on is necessary, it just needs tightened up. I don't think the section on Apple is relevant. The history of technological innovation section should be for actual inventions e.g. the television, virtual reality, etc. Not the companies that make them. Don't think Iphone, think Smartphone. I think we're at the point where we need a solid gameplan regarding exactly what needs to be added. MacPickles (discuss • contribs) 13:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)MacPickles

I completely agree with macpickles it seems we are all just going off on a tangent without really consulting the groups. is a bit on the history of social media important because it is a massive technological innovation?... what are the main key areas we still need to focus on and the length of information we have already for the different titles, is this the amount of information we are aiming for or is it a case of we all need to add to each others work? Has00031 (discuss • contribs) 13:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

thats me wrote a small paragraph about social media as a form of technological innovation. im not 100% sure if this is all completely relevant, i believe it is but feedback would be good! Has00031 (discuss • contribs) 14:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Your social media passage seems relevant to me Has00031. And I completely agree with yourself and MacPickles, there needs to be more consultation within the groups, MacPickles and I have tried to push this, but to no avail, which is starting to become really irritating. Regarding work, I think it's a case of adding to other's work if we have something that will improve it, it's all about making the most comprehensive page possible. Scottyscarf (discuss • contribs) 15:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok,here's what I'm thinking. Basically, we fill that section full of recent technological innovations, ones that you believe pertain to the course: television, smart phones, Computers, the Internet itself. It's not hard thinking of them, the problem is finding any academic sources to quote (and that's if you think we need quotes for subjects like these). Everything else should be dedicated to theories relating to/cultural effects of technological innovation. We've already got a few. I think the only way to fill this out is to just go through all the readings to look for something relevant. I'm gonna skim through some of the subjects we haven't done tomorrow to see if there's anything else we can add. Then I'll try and formulate a gameplan. If we have a good idea of what we should be writing about, then we can truly pull together and finish this thing. Sorry if this seems a bit panicked by the way. MacPickles (discuss • contribs) 23:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)MacPickles

I agree MacPickles. I think that going through the readings to find theories is a must. Even having sections on specific theorists is a good idea. I like your idea of going through recent innovations for examples to apply the theories. Ill try get some ideas down as well and share so we can know what we want to focus on from now on. Oac00001 (discuss • contribs) 14:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete the Apply paragraph if you want, whatever's best for the team. I just thought it was a good place to start. And I never said the Lennon paragraph was irrelevant, I just said it could be more concise. If we are getting rid of the Apple section, we should make it more generally about smartphones? Cmvance (discuss • contribs) 18:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I've added a paragraph about east and west coast transmedia to the transmedia section. Feel free to offer what you think, but I feel it's worthwhile. Cmvance (discuss • contribs) 18:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I've added a quote from the website where I read about west and east coast, and I want to put a reference in for the bottom of the page, but I don't know how. Can someone please help? Cmvance (discuss • contribs) 22:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I've explained how to reference a few comments up the way, here we are; what to do is reference as you would an essay in a bibliography, but set this out in the text itself, so you'd say John McDonald, for example, says such and such, and following that put in the reference inbetween and < /ref > (without the spaces) and this sets it out, have a look at the edit section of the Technological Determinism section if you need to check how I've done it. Scottyscarf (discuss • contribs) 23:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm working on fleshing out the History of Technological Innovation section today. I'm thinking of doing a short write up on each significant era of human history and the technological innovations which allowed them. Michael James McD (discuss • contribs) 14:31, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Guys I can't think of anything to add to the glossary section, anybody got any ideas? Also, for the history of technological innovation section should we do it chronologically? Like, have each section as a decade and describe it like that ? Sak00030 (discuss • contribs) 15:31, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The glossary is purely definitions of things we've mentioned in the main body. And yeah, that sounds like a plan. I've written an introduction section for the history, but it has yet to be approved. Scottyscarf (discuss • contribs) 16:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I've noticed in the reference list a few cases of things not referenced correctly. If you've used a book or article (number 14 from the media convergence section, for example) can you reference like you would in an essay, that'll make it easier for all of us. Scottyscarf (discuss • contribs) 12:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

'''Technical Innovation - Software? Influential Characters?'''

Hey guys I'm not working on this chapter but was just giving it a read through and its pretty good so far. I think you would benefit from including some information on software innovation as well as the people behind them. For example Steve Jobs and Apple, this could also extend to things such as Pixar and their innovations with computer animation. This is a good read on Pixar that could get you started. Danielball92 (discuss • contribs) 11:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Glossary

Hello all. I'm from a different group, just floating around. I noticed that your glossary is having a similar problem to ours, which I have just spent some time fixing up. This is how I fixed ours:

==Glossary==

Always on

The notion of being constantly connected to a network, even if you're not actively checking it.

Now, the level of heading for each letter/term/definition would be up to you. I made it so each letter is an h3 and each term is simply bolded. The template is used to hide the heading ("A") from the table of contents. This will make any heading level (h1 through h6), and you don't need to use the = sign. Applies to any sections in your book. Cheers! Bailie Richards (discuss • contribs) 04:15, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks for that Bailie! Scottyscarf (discuss • contribs) 13:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Right, I'm going to get more down about the history of technological innovation, decades and so on. Anyone else who wants to add anything would be good.Scottyscarf (discuss • contribs) 14:00, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

As regards the history of technology section, I'm working on a by era history of technology, referencing the most important technological developments of each. I'll cover from Prehistoric to the 20th century. Then we could do a decade by decade history like you suggested. Michael James McD (discuss • contribs) 17:08, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Has anyone got any other ideas for other info or read anything for addition info? It would be especially nice if other members of Mob Rule would, seeing as only MacPickles and I have done anything so far.Scottyscarf (discuss • contribs) 14:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, we're now starting to double up on content, and that's not acceptable. We have 2 sections on media convergence, and 2 on social media. Whoever did these sections, try and work together to narrow them down into one. The social media bit is important to have, but there's no referencing in it. 3 weeks of the module are dedicated to social media. Go on the resource list and find some quotes. Finally, the Netflix section isn't relevant. It's too specific. I'm gonna add to the history of technological innovation section today. And if anybody is looking for something to do, look at the readings for week 7 and 8. They look like they could be relevant. MacPickles (discuss • contribs) 15:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)MacPickles

I wrote the part on online social media and the media convergence higher up the page. Ill fix up the social media parts and try incorporate both of them. For the media convergence one, I think we are missing out on extra sections by making one whole paragraph just on media convergence. Better to separate out the topics relevant into separate sub headings. Although the larger paragraph down below could serve as the introductory section for convergence. Would that be okay? Think a bit of shuffling around is needed in the layout. Oac00001 (discuss • contribs) 19:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry lads ive been out the country last few days unavoidable so not been able to contribute. still more than some where is everyone in both groups? can only see 4 or 5 guys participating in this? not really right. Last week of this so need big contributions all round. Is it a case of adding to what we already have now or keep looking for new chapters to write? Has00031 (discuss • contribs) 11:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I think we need to add some more, tidy up some of the cultural sections as they are quite big chunks of paragraph, and to add some more information. flesh out more topics from the course. If more people could start contributing please that would be great. Oac00001 (discuss • contribs) 13:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

If the person who wrote the section on always on culture and transmedia and convergence can get back to me on this discussion quickly can you please do so. We need to spread out that information a bit more. Oac00001 (discuss • contribs) 13:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I Just combined the two social media sections to create just the one. Makes more sense like that as both had some good ideas. Let me know if that suits well with you guys. Oac00001 (discuss • contribs) 13:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

yeah i wrote the always on culture bit, thats fine if you want to do that. as its a large section i will help you and add some more information on the this as well. as long as we collaborate so we arent writing the same information that will be good mate. Has00031 (discuss • contribs) 14:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok cool. Ive moved some of the paragraphs further up the page to fit in with the style of presentation we are going for. Not changed anything from what you have written, just tied it in with stuff I've written. Also, do you have a source for the stuff about the football player who for fired? would be best to add that in. Oac00001 (discuss • contribs) 14:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

We've got some really good work going on here guys, I'm just about to add a section about game consoles. And you're right, the lack of work from some people in both groups is completely unacceptable, I've posted numerous times on facebook to get other people from my group to actually contribute, but to no avail, which is really poor form. At least we're doing a good job. Scottyscarf (discuss • contribs) 15:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. Its fine I guess haha. Just make sure we are cracking on. Another thing, I see a few things in quotation marks that dont have references. Grab some sources for them or remove them. Dont want to get caught up in work not being sourced. Oac00001 (discuss • contribs) 15:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I've started doing a section on Television in History of Technological Innovation section. User: HmMcKelvie contribs) 21:22, 2 March 2015

Been going through everything, adding to Glossary, just not sure how basic wanting glossary, I mean words like broadcast, yes or no in Glossary User: HmMcKelvie contribs) 21:22, 2 March 2015

I say just put anything you think in the glossary, can't hurt. Scottyscarf (discuss • contribs) 22:13, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

What are everyone's thoughts on creating a section detailing the pioneers of computing? For example we could have articles on Charles Babbage, Alan Turing, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs et al, detailing their contributions to technological innovations and the implications for society and subsequent developments and innovations based on their work. Michael James McD (discuss • contribs) 12:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, its a good idea, I'll do the introductory section, about the people who were pioneers of computing, and a general introduction, just now. Do you think we should add a section on cinema? User:HmMckelvie contribs) 3rd March 17:36

Right, I'm going to do some research on Greg's suggestions. Anyone else thinking of doing the same thing? Scottyscarf (discuss • contribs) 13:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

do you guys think what was in lecture one about the critical perspectives of technology and the fact that they are "political" is along the lines of what he wants us to add to it? Has00031 (discuss • contribs) 14:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure, wasn't it said in that lecture that that didn't mean "political" in terms of organised politics? But I don't see anything wrong with putting it in. Scottyscarf (discuss • contribs) 14:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

yeah i remember from that lecture that it doesnt mean political in a way of politics but political in a different way so it might tie in to what greg wanted us to do. Has00031 (discuss • contribs) 14:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah sounds good to me. I've added a section called Technology in Other Disciplines for all of this stuff, I've done a part of philosophy for it. Scottyscarf (discuss • contribs) 15:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

im trying to add a number of terms to the glossary it wont let me saying someone else is editing at the same time. whoever it is most likely scotty or macpickles can you go off it for a minute so i can add them? Has00031 (discuss • contribs) 16:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

its saying an edit conflict has happened what does this mean ive done quite a few so dont want to lose it? Has00031 (discuss • contribs) 16:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, just seen this, I was editing it, is that it now? Scottyscarf (discuss • contribs) 16:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

ive no idea what ive done! can someone fix the glossary sorry lads im not sure how that happened! i have 7 terms i want to put in the glossary but ive made a right mess of it! HELP! Has00031 (discuss • contribs) 16:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

No worries! If you post on here the terms you want to add I'll copy and paste them across and see if it works, if you like? I edited the glossary earlier, changed the structure so all the letters don't appear in the contents box, so it might be something to do with that. Scottyscarf (discuss • contribs) 16:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

okay makes sense panic over haha .... Cultural Theory Simply a term used to refer to a collection of conceptual frameworks for understanding all sorts of cultural phenomena.

Disinhibition ‘the inability to control impulsive behaviours, thoughts or feelings and manifests online as people communicating in ways that they would not ordinarily do offline

Fan Culture The fan still constitutes a scandalous category in contemporary culture, one alternately the target of ridicule and anxiety, of dread and desire […] The stereotypical conception of the fan, while not without limited factual basis, amounts to a projection of anxieties about the violation of dominant cultural hierarchies

Horizontal Integration Horizontal Integration is where an organisation develops by buying up competitors in the same section of the market e.g. one music publisher buys out other smaller music publishers.

Online Identity Internet identity (also called IID), or internet persona is a social identity that an Internet user establishes in online communities and websites. It can also be considered as an actively constructed presentation of oneself.

Vertical Integration This is where an institution has shares or owns each part of the production and distribution process.

Wireless using radio, microwaves, etc. (as opposed to wires or cables) to transmit signals Has00031 (discuss • contribs) 16:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Cheers! I'll add the first one in for you, and I'll let you know if it's working so you can do the rest, don't want to take credit for your work haha. Scottyscarf (discuss • contribs) 16:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Yep that's working fine, I've put the cultural theory definition in. Scottyscarf (discuss • contribs) 16:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

thank you mate appreciate it! Has00031 (discuss • contribs) 16:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

No bother pal! Scottyscarf (discuss • contribs) 17:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Alright chaps, just added a section on technology and science just to complement what Greg suggested. Think its good to show how this is a massive idea in the idea of technological innovation. I might go on to look at technology and politics now. Oac00001 (discuss • contribs) 17:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Excellent, cheers for that. Scottyscarf (discuss • contribs) 17:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I have started doing a section on Technology and History. The computing section is nearly done,just need to add bit done about Steve Jobs and Apple,unless there is anything else,anyone thinks should be added? User:HmMckelvie contribs) 19:09 4 March 2015

I've started a section on Kindles and E-Readers, not 100% sure what I'm doing but I'll get there!--Swiftspick (discuss • contribs) 21:39, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The history of Technology section reads more as a selection of notable technologies rather than a history, as it stands it may be better to rename it notable or important developments in the modern era. Thoughts? Also I've written up a short era by era history of technological innovation (Prehistoric, classical period, medieval, industrial revolution) that may be better placed under this heading. Michael James McD (discuss • contribs) 09:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good, got a bit off topic when writing the history bit, and was going to go back an edit, User:HmMckelvie contribs) 11:39 5 March 2015

I changed the name of the History of Technological Innovations to Important developments in the modern era, as suggested --Swiftspick (discuss • contribs) 16:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Just a note on the History of Technology section, I'll have it up in a couple of hours, just getting it all referenced up etc first. Michael James McD (discuss • contribs) 16:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

We still have 2 sections on media convergence, and always on culture. If the people who did these parts don't sort it, I'll have to take the best bits from both and make one section out of them. Other than that, the page is looking good. MacPickles (discuss • contribs) 17:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)MacPickles

Im going through and checking spellings errors and stuff like that. Not too sure if there is much else we need to add to the wiki. Any suggestions? Oac00001 (discuss • contribs) 22:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

We could always add bits about medical innovations - new technologies mean new treatments for diseases and similar? [--Swiftspick (discuss • contribs) 00:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)]

I'm going to expand a little on the introduction, just make it a bit more thorough, but otherwise we're looking good! Scottyscarf (discuss • contribs) 13:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Added some new inventions like sat nav and electric cars and a section on business as another discipline, everythings looking finneeee. les00038 (discuss • contribs) 13:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Has someone deleted information from the History of Tech section? Michael James McD (discuss • contribs) 14:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

are we meeting tomorrow to discuss the presentation? sorry to the dude who took my number but i didn't catch your name, give me a text! Cmvance (discuss • contribs) 22:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

i'll ask again, are we meeting today? someone mentioned meeting at 12 but no-one has text me or replied to my last question...a week ago Cmvance (discuss • contribs) 09:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Glossary
Hey guys ! your page looks great ! I'm working on the Web as a Private and Public Space chapter and just thought I'd have a wee look at how the others are going. I was going to suggest that at first our chapter started off using headings for each letter in the Glossary but that ended up looking messy and taking a lot of space in the contents box so maybe changing each letter to bold rather than a heading might help. Just a suggestion. Laurasmajdorboom (discuss • contribs) 11:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the help Laura! Will see how that works out. Oac00001 (discuss • contribs) 17:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey Oac00001, great job with the glossary looks really good ! Laurasmajdorboom (discuss • contribs) 20:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)